To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan
BACKGROUND & IMPACT ASSESSMENT SECTION
Governor's Drought Task Force
Governor Janet Napolitano
October 8, 2004
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan BACKGROUND SECTION I. Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................i Chapter 1 - Introduction..........................................................................1 Executive Order........................................................................1 Approach/Objectives ............................................................... 2 Drought Definitions........................................................... ......... 3 Evaluating Drought in Multiple Sectors and Locations ........................... 4 Chapter 2 Background .........................................................................5 Arizona Climate Summary............................................................5 Defining Drought...................................................................... 7 Economic and Environmental Sectors Impacted by Drought..................... 8 Impact To Arizona Forests And Wildland Fire.....................................10 Potential Impact of Simultaneous Drought Episodes on the Salt and Colorado River Systems................................................11 Planning and Institutional Sensitivities to Long-Term Drought Planning......... 12 Jurisdictional and Institutional Issues................................................. 13 Chapter 3 Overview of Water Supplies in Arizona.......................................15 Colorado River........................................................................ 15 Availability of Colorado River Supplies............................................ 20 Central Arizona Project............................................................... 21 Surface Water Other than Colorado River.........................................24 Groundwater...........................................................................27 Effluent..................................................................................34 Chapter 4 Workgroup and Committee Reports..............................................35 Appendices I Governor's Executive Order II 2003 Potable Water Plan & 2004 Potable Water Plan III Drought Task Force Membership IV Definitions/Acronyms V Description of Priorities for Colorado River Water and Contractors by Priority Order VI Workgroup Reports Monitoring Committee VII Workgroup Reports Commerce, Recreation & Tourism VIII Workgroup Reports Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife IX Workgroup Report Irrigated Agriculture X Workgroup Report Municipal & Industrial XI White Paper Tribal Impacts XII Other Cross-Sector Impacts
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Executive Summary
Arizona has been affected by drought conditions during most of the last decade. It is not known at this time whether the drought conditions will abate in the short term, or whether this is a multi-decade drought sequence as has occurred in the past. However, it is absolutely clear that this is not the last drought that will affect the state. The economic and environmental impacts of drought continue to increase as the population of the state increases. Recent conditions on the Colorado River have initiated critical discussion that some had thought were long-range issues, with water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell at the lowest level since the dams were built. Although Arizona has a reliable water supply by comparison to several of its neighboring states, drought conditions in the rural parts of Arizona have had devastating personal and economic impacts. In addition, due to the Central Arizona Project's low priority on the Colorado River system, there is cause for some concern about the ability of the existing system to respond to long-term drought that affects both the Colorado and the Salt-Verde system. Arizona has made huge investments in importing and storing water supplies for the major metropolitan areas, and those investments have significantly buffered the state from impacts during the current drought. However, there is a need for further preparedness in case conditions worsen. On March 20, 2003 Governor Janet Napolitano issued Executive Order 2003-12 and established the Governor's Drought Task Force to address the drought issues facing all Arizonans further directing the Arizona Department of Water Resources to provide leadership in this effort. The goal of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan is to: 1. Identify the impacts of drought to the various sectors of water uses; 2. Define the sources of drought vulnerability for water use sectors and outline monitoring programs to alert water users and resource managers of the onset and severity of drought events; and 3. Prepare drought response options and drought mitigation strategies to reduce the impact of drought to water users in Arizona. To achieve these goals, State leaders have developed a "plan" that will be reviewed annually and if necessary updated to provide the most up to date information and technology to not only prepare for drought but to provide the tools necessary that can be implemented to reduce the impacts from drought. The information in the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan will assist State leaders, in concert with water users, planners, and resource managers, prepare for and respond to current and future drought conditions in Arizona. The Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan consists of two components: 1. Background and Impact Assessment defines drought in Arizona, provides an historical context of drought, and catalogues the historical impacts and sources of drought vulnerability of water use sectors and water supplies, and 2. Operational Drought Plan identifies regional vulnerability to drought impacts, identifies drought response options, defines drought mitigation strategies, outlines monitoring activities and programs to alert water users and
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 i
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
resource managers of the onset of drought, and provides an implementation plan to respond to drought events. The intent of this portion of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan - Background and Impact Assessment is to provide information necessary to understand the dynamic climate conditions that effect Arizona and what role drought has in that dynamic. Further, Arizona has a complex set of water laws that influence water planning in this state. A description of these laws is provided herein. Finally, the Task Force was focused on maximizing to every extent possible, stakeholder input and involvement. As such, a committee was created to develop a comprehensive monitoring network and drought trigger levels to provide early warning for the citizens of this state. Additionally impact assessment workgroups were establish for the following sectors to identify impacts and vulnerabilities and to identify potential mitigation and response options. The culmination of these efforts are contained in the Workgroup Reports that can be found in the Appendices of this document that provide extensive insight into drought and its impacts.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
ii
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Arizona has been affected by drought conditions for six out of the last seven years, and virtually all parts of the state have a cumulative water supply deficit. Concern regarding the impacts of drought reached a peak in 2002, which was one of the driest years in the last century. Until recently, the major urban areas of Arizona, Phoenix and Tucson, were thought to be insulated from the impacts of drought because of past federal and state investments in water supply sources such as the Salt River Project and the Central Arizona Project. In addition, Arizona has made major investments in managing the groundwater supplies in the Active Management Areas of the state (Phoenix, Tucson, Pinal, Prescott and Santa Cruz, see Figure 1, below). However, recent serious drought conditions and new information about drought patterns in the last 1000 years based on tree-ring analysis, have raised awareness of the need for a comprehensive state drought plan and ways to address the possibility of long-term, sustained drought conditions. The most urgent need is in the growing communities in the rural parts of the state, where alternative water supplies are generally very limited and the economy is strongly affected by drought (particularly grazing, recreation, and forestry-related sectors). Some of the most significant effects of the drought are environmental--multiple aquatic species are at risk, and wildfires and bark beetles are decimating woodlands and forests of Arizona. The environmental impacts of drought are generally more difficult to manage than the societal impacts. Drought is cumulative, and does not affect all economic sectors in the same ways. This plan is designed to respond to the differences in water supply availability and drought vulnerability for each sector and geographic area. The plan contains a separate section called the "Operational Drought Plan", which addresses the recommended adaptation, mitigation and response activities.
Figure 1: Active Management Areas within Arizona
A.
Executive Order
Governor Janet Napolitano established the Governor's Drought Task Force by executive order on March 20, 2003 (see Appendix I, Executive Order 2003-12). Drought response activities in Arizona were previously handled within the Department of Emergency Management, but recognizing the differences between drought and other types of emergencies and the need for proactive drought planning, the Governor directed the Department of Water Resources to provide leadership in this effort. The Executive Order required the development of three major products: a short-term drought plan for the summer of 2003 that was adopted on July 10, 2003 (see Appendix II, Potable Water Plan); a long-term drought mitigation and coordination plan to address various specified areas of concern (represented by this document); and development and
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 1
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
implementation of a statewide water conservation strategy, which will be submitted to the Governor separately but at the same time as this Plan. The Drought Task Force itself is comprised of state agencies and elected officials (see Appendix III, Drought Task Force Membership). However, broad public and stakeholder participation has been encouraged. Workgroups have been established to actively solicit input from the municipal and industrial sectors, irrigated agriculture, environmental and resource management interests, tribal governments, and the commerce, recreation and tourism sector. In addition, public and private sector volunteers who provided valuable expertise directly supported the planning process.1 Additionally, over 1,000 people have been regularly notified of the Task Force's activities and meetings as well a series of seven public workshops prior to release of this draft plan. Furthermore, public input will continue to be encouraged as the plan is implemented. The Task Force has also been aided by experts from the National Drought Mitigation Center and supported financially by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. B. Approach/Objectives of the Drought Plan
The adopted mission statement for the Governor's Drought Task Force is to develop a sustainable drought planning process for Arizona that includes: Timely and reliable monitoring of drought and water supply conditions in the state and an assessment of potential impacts An assessment of the vulnerability of key sectors, regions, and population groups in the state and potential actions to mitigate those impacts Assisting stakeholders in preparing for and responding to drought impacts, including development of a statewide water conservation strategy and public awareness program. The focus on a sustainable drought planning process has been a key objective from the beginning of this effort. Developing a plan that quickly becomes obsolete and does not adapt to changing conditions will not make a contribution to the long-term welfare of the state, while an adaptive program that focuses on building institutional and stakeholder relationships and an improved information base over time should prove more robust in responding effectively to changing conditions. The Drought Task Force has developed a planning process that encourages the use of the latest scientific information, particularly in enhancing the use of climate forecasts and monitoring data at the regional scale to enhance the utility of drought-related information for decision-makers. In addition to the strong science focus, the process has been designed to maximize stakeholder input, especially in monitoring conditions locally across the state and helping to shape the communication and response processes. It is hoped that providing longer-term climate projections, even those that are relatively uncertain, can provide valuable information about the possible range and intensity of drought. Such projections allow a broader assessment of potential drought impacts and identification of early steps to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacity.
1 Among the entities that have donated staff time to drafting this document are the Salt River Project, the University of Arizona, the Central Arizona Project, the Bureau of Reclamation, the cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale, the Agri-Business Council, Project WET, and numerous private firms: Arizona-American Water Company, HDR Engineers, Hargis and Associates, and Malcolm Pirnie.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
2
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
This effort has also focused on defining the conditions that create vulnerability to drought in each sector and identifying potential adaptive responses. This is intended to increase the effectiveness of drought planning and reduce long-term costs related to emergencies. Capacity building is an essential component of the proposed process. Implementation is focused at the local level, and will encourage local responses to local conditions and concerns. In this way, the plan recognizes the strengths inherent in local knowledge about conditions, practices, and values, while providing a comprehensive statewide support structure to help communities and impacted sectors better prepare for drought in the future. C. Drought Definitions
For purposes of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan a definition of drought was developed to provide the basis needed to guide the development of appropriate triggers and monitoring activities. Drought, in this context is defined as a sustained, natural reduction in precipitation that results in negative impacts to the environment and human activities. Although drought is a natural, recurring feature of climate, occurring in high as well as low rainfall areas, drought is more than just a moisture deficit. Beyond the definition of drought is the magnitude of the impacts on the environment and to human activities. The extent of drought impacts is dependent on multiple physical and social factors, including several climate variables, water use patterns and vulnerability. Drought affects various sectors of society in different ways, and can be defined in many ways- thus perception is an important element in qualitatively gauging the impact of drought. The risk associated with drought for any region is a product of both the region's exposure to the event (i.e. probability of occurrence at various severity levels) and the vulnerability of society (and the environment) to the event. Subsequent droughts in the same region will have different effects, even if they are identical in intensity and spatial characteristics, because societal (and ecological) characteristics will have changed (National Drought Mitigation Center). Following are other key definitions that will be used in the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan. For monitoring purposes the following definitions will be used. Indicators are variables to describe drought conditions (examples - precipitation, stream flow, groundwater, reservoir levels, soil moisture, etc.). The indicators have been identified for each Climate Division, identified in the following section and will allow the monitoring committee to assess data against historic data to determine if a trigger has been tripped. Triggers are specific values of each indicator that initiate and terminate each drought status level, and subsequent suggested management responses. Additionally, drought will be described using timescale that relate to the observed climatic impacts. Short-term Drought is measured by the departure of precipitation or another drought indicator from average conditions on a time-scale from one to several months. Long-term Drought is measured when sustained precipitation deficits over time periods of one to several years affect surface and subsurface water supplies. After each stage of drought has been identified, certain actions will need to be initiated. The Governor's Drought Task Force has focused on water users taking necessary actions to respond to drought or in reducing the impacts that may occur at each stage. Impacts are
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 3
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
the visible results of the effects of drought. Impacts vary across the state based on climatic and social activities and are the economic, social, and environmental effects that occur, either directly or indirectly, as a result of drought. Each workgroup has identified individual impacts for each water-using sector within the state. Vulnerability refers to the level of risk of an area, water supply, or water user for suffering negative consequences as a result of the temporary or permanent reduction in a water supply as a direct result of drought. Mitigation is pre-drought actions or programs that reduce risk and impacts and enhance recovery. Response is an action implemented as a result of drought that is shortterm and is aimed at reducing impacts and enhancing recovery. More general definitions are contained in Appendix IV of this document. D. Evaluating Drought in Multiple Sectors and Locations
The Arizona Drought Plan acknowledges that drought affects multiple sectors in the same location differently, and establishes trigger mechanisms that are related to the vulnerability of each region rather than establishing statewide drought stages. This approach is imperative in a state that is so dependent on imported surface water supplies from the Colorado, with reservoirs that hold a multi-year water supply, and large groundwater reserves. In the portions of the state that do not have these long-term, generally reliable water supplies, sectors such as grazing and recreation are likely to be in serious drought status more commonly than the major urban areas. The triggers also acknowledge and work in concert with the relatively complex institutional water management context. The drought indices, monitoring techniques and trigger points will continue to be further refined in the future to respond to the varied landscape types in Arizona's primary physiographic regions (basin and range, Mogollon Rim, Colorado plateau) and the influence of local and regional elevation-induced weather and climate patterns. The Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis and modified as improvements are made in the process.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
4
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 2 - Background
A coordinated response to drought requires an understanding of the local and regional economic and environmental sectors that are vulnerable to drought. An understanding of drought and the associated impacts can guide drought response planning and drought mitigation plans. The purpose of this chapter is to: Summarize the Arizona's climate and historical context of drought events in Arizona; Summarize Arizona's definition of drought used for long-term drought planning; Identify sectors of Arizona's economy and environment impacted by drought and the potential impacts of drought events to each sector with additional emphasis on drought impacts to forests and the relationship with wild land fire; Define potential impacts of simultaneous drought events on the Colorado River system and the Salt River system; Identify planning and institutional sensitivities in long-term drought planning in Arizona; and Summarize jurisdictional and institutional issues related to drought planning. A. Arizona Climate Summary
Arizona's climate is considered to be arid under "normal" conditions, and much of the state is classified as desert. As is typical of most of the world's desert regions, Arizona's climate is strongly influenced by subtropical atmospheric circulation. However, the interplay of subtropical high pressure features with mid-latitude circulation, such as the polar and subtropical jet streams during the winter, and with the North American monsoon circulation during summer, determines the season-to-season (intraseasonal) and year-to-year (interannual) variations in precipitation, sunshine, and temperature. Precipitation in Arizona is highly seasonal, with peaks during the winter (November-April) and summer (July-September). The summer precipitation peak is most pronounced in southeastern Arizona, and generally becomes more pronounced as one proceeds from west to east across the state. Winter precipitation is associated with widespread storms, one to several days in duration, which provide rains at lower elevations and snowfall at higher elevations. Winter precipitation is particularly important to Arizona water supply, as cooler winter temperatures attenuate evaporation in the soil and surface water bodies, and allow snowpack to persist until the spring. In contrast, summer precipitation is associated with convective thunderstorm activity accompanying the North American monsoon circulation; summer precipitation is typically high intensity, short duration, and spatially heterogeneous. Because summer precipitation is high intensity and is accompanied by maximum annual temperatures and high rates of evapotranspiration, recharge to the soil column and water supplies is limited during the summer. In addition to strong seasonality, Arizona precipitation, like that of most of the world's desert regions, is characterized by a high degree of year-to-year (interannual) variation. One of the key factors influencing interannual precipitation variations in Arizona, during winter in particular, is the El Niouthern Oscillation, a multi-season to multi-year variation in equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures and associated atmospheric circulation.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 5
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
El Niouthern Oscillation has varied considerably in frequency, intensity, and interval between El Nind La Nihase over the historical and paleoclimate record. When El Niouthern Oscillation is in its El Nihase, Arizona frequently receives above average winter precipitation, due to an enhanced subtropical jet stream and increased low-latitude moisture available to storms tracking across the Southwest. However, the El Niet Arizona winter connection is quite variable, and although most of the wettest Arizona winters have occurred during the El Nihase, there have been a considerable number of dry Arizona El Niinters. When El Niouthern Oscillation is in its La Nihase, Arizona is most frequently dry, and is reliably not wet, due to a more northern storm track and increased influence of subtropical high pressure. During, the past two decades, several La Nipisodes (e.g., 1989-90, 1995-96, 1998-2001) have initiated Arizona droughts. Paleoclimate research indicates a strong connection between the historical frequency and intensity of the La Nihase and multi-year drought in the Southwest. The noted 1950's drought, which had exceedingly severe effects on New Mexico and the Southern Plains states (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Arizona), was embedded during a longer-term 1940s-1970s dry period in Arizona, associated with more frequent La Niand fewer and lower magnitude El Ni A so-called step change in Pacific Basin climate in 197677 heralded two decades of wet conditions in the Southwest, associated with more frequent and higher magnitude El Ni Multi-decade time scale changes in the climate of both the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins are implicated in severe sustained drought in Arizona. In the Pacific Ocean, a feature called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been associated with the record of winter (November-March) precipitation variations in the western United States. The major multi-year Arizona droughts of the past 110 years, late 1800s-early 1900s, 1950s, 1996-present, occurred during negative phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Sea surface temperatures and western U.S. drought patterns since 1999 indicate the possibility that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation might have shifted to a phase favoring dry conditions in Arizona for the next ~20 years. Research indicates that, across Arizona, 1999-2003 is one of the driest 5-year periods of winter precipitation in the instrumental climate record. Concern about an episode of Pacific Decadal Oscillation-influenced prolonged drought in Arizona is heightened by the fact that the long-term predictability of winter precipitation in the Southwest is diminished during dry Southwest Pacific Decadal Oscillation phases. The multi-decadal behavior of the Atlantic Ocean has also been associated with multidecade dry conditions in the Southwest. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in conjunction with Pacific Ocean climate patterns, such as El Niouthern Oscillation, appears to produce atmospheric circulation patterns conducive to enhanced La Nina-like conditions in the Southwest. The paleoclimate record of drought shows that the late 1500s is probably the drought of record in Arizona for the last 1000 years. This drought has been tied to record low flows on the Colorado River, native population collapse due to disease in Mexico, as well as widespread drought conditions across North America. Reconstructions of Arizona climate division winter (November-April) precipitation show extensive dry periods in some or all parts of Arizona during virtually every century in the last 1000 years, with notable multiArizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 6
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
year droughts in the mid-1200s, late 1500s, mid-to-late 1600s, mid-1700s, late 1800s, early 1900s, and mid-20th century. Most of the aforementioned winter dry periods were more severe and many more sustained than the Arizona drought of the last 5-8 years. B. Defining Drought
Drought has been described as an "insidious natural disaster." A drought is a climatic event that can extend for single season or last for several years. Typically, the onset and cessation of drought is difficult to gauge until after the episode. Droughts are difficult to predict and their level of intensity is often related to pre-existing conditions. For example, drought conditions following a wet season may not be as severe as a similar magnitude drought that follows a normal or subnormal run-off year. A long-term drought can have devastating impacts to nearly all sectors of a local or regional economy and environment. For example, in Texas, the 1996 drought caused $1.9 billion in losses to farmers and cattle-growers and removed $5 billion from the Texas economy. A drought may impact individual sectors of the economy or environment differently, due to differences in vulnerability and location. The definition of the drought for the operational plan will consider differences in drought impacts by sector, degree of vulnerability, and location. The conceptual definition of drought is as follows: "Drought is a sustained natural reduction in precipitation that results in negative impacts to the environment and human activities. The National Drought Mitigation Center defines four basic types of drought: 1) Meteorological or climatological; 2) Agricultural; 3) Hydrological, and 4) Socioeconomic. Meteorological or climatological drought is defined in terms of the magnitude of a precipitation shortfall and the duration of this shortfall event. Agricultural drought links the various characteristics of meteorological drought to agricultural impacts, focusing on precipitation shortages, differences between actual and potential evapotranspiration, and soil moisture deficit. Hydrological droughts are characterized by periods of precipitation shortfall that result in an effect on surface or subsurface water supply, rather than direct impacts of precipitation shortfalls. Hydrological droughts are typically out of phase or lag the occurrence of meteorological and agricultural drought. Where irrigation is necessary for agriculture, agricultural drought is really determined by hydrological drought. Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of some economic good with elements of meteorological, agricultural, and hydrological drought."
In Arizona, drought is more than just a moisture deficit. It is the result of a complex interplay between water uses, both cultural and natural uses, and natural precipitation that operates on varying time and spatial levels. The extent of drought reflects local and regional geography, climate variables, water use patterns, water supply vulnerability, and cultural preferences. The extent of the impact to a particular sector and/or region is
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 7
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
an important element in qualitatively gauging the impact of drought. Therefore, local perceptions are a fundamental component of defining the level of drought impact. C. Economic and Environmental Sectors Impacted by Drought
Drought impacts broad areas of Arizona's economy and environment. Through research, investigation, and public involvement, the Governor's Drought Task Force identified the following sectors of Arizona's economy and environment that are vulnerable to impacts from drought events: Irrigated Agriculture Municipal and Industrial Water Users Energy Production Public Health Wildlife Environmental Health and Watershed Management Livestock Commerce and Recreation Tourism
The economic and environmental sectors and potential impacts are identified in Table 1. TABLE 1. Economic and Environmental Sectors and Potential Drought Impacts Sector Potential Drought Impacts Irrigated Agriculture Reduction in soil moisture, Reduced crop quality, Reduced crop yields, Increased pest outbreaks, Increased water supply costs, Increased management applications (fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides), Municipal and Industrial Increased water demands due reduction to precipitation, Water Users Reduced water supplies (groundwater and surface water), Economic impacts from reduced water sales or production, Energy Production Reduced hydroelectric production, Increased power demands due to increased temperatures and agricultural uses, Reduction in water supply available for cooling water, Public Health Population stress, Potential reduction in water quality, Increased potential of disease transmission, Environmental Health Increased frequency and severity of forest fires, and Watershed Pest outbreaks (e.g. Bark beetles), Management Reduction in watershed production, Reduction in habitat quality and forage production, Potential for increased erosion/arroyo formation, Livestock and Wildlife Reduced water supply, Increased mortality,
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 8
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Commerce and Recreation
Tourism
Reduced recruitment, Increased supplemental feed costs, Increased predation, Reductions in herd size, Increased potential for disease outbreaks, Increased potential for human-wildlife contact Reduced sales and use of outdoor recreation equipment, Reduction in rural recreation economy, Decreased water related recreation, Reduction in in-migration of new businesses, Potential increased migration from rural areas to urban areas, including international migration, Reduced visitations to parks, Decreased number of winter visitors, Decrease in conventions and hospitality events.
Each sector has differing vulnerabilities to the impacts of drought. Within each sector, vulnerability to drought may vary regionally. A sector's vulnerability to drought is generally a function of the reliability of the available water supply, availability of replacement or backup water supplies, and the degree of impact that occurs from a reduction in supply. For example, an irrigated farm may experience different impacts than a neighboring ranch operation experiencing the same drought. The farm may have the option of drilling a well to replace some or all of the reduced supply to save a portion of the crop. The ranch may not have the option of developing groundwater and may have to reduce the herd size or sell off the stock entirely. Furthermore, different types of drought (e.g. meteorological, agricultural, hydrologic, and socioeconomic) can trigger different impact to the sectors at different times. For example, municipal water providers may experience increased water demands during a meteorological drought because lack of precipitation causes customers to water their lawns more frequently. If a drought deepens, the same water provider may experience a hydrologic drought if a reduction in water supply (e.g. reduced reservoir storage) occurs. Finally, in an extended drought, the water provider may endure a socioeconomic drought, if the revenue of the entity is reduced due to decreased water deliveries or sales. The paleoclimatic history of Arizona records several important drought events and related impacts. Perhaps the most dramatic is the potential association of extended drought events in the mid-1200's and 1400's with the abandonment of settlements across the southwest. In recent memory, the drought of the 1950's and early 1960's had far reaching impacts to Arizona's economy and environment. Rural surface water supplies were reduced due to the drought. In response, new groundwater resources were rapidly developed, particularly for mining and municipal uses in rural Arizona. The reduction of water supplies on the Salt and Verde Rivers caused additional groundwater development in central Arizona. The drought had political impacts as well. The drought illustrated the vulnerability of surface water supplies in Central Arizona. As a result, the drought galvanized political support for development of the Central Arizona Project.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
9
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
D.
Impact To Arizona Forests And Wildland Fire
The major factors affecting fire frequency, size, and intensity include the following: the nature and dynamics of the ecosystem (including history of past fires), land management practices, sources of ignition, and climate and weather (including drought). These factors have interacted in complex ways during the last two centuries to produce the conditions that currently bear on Arizona's landscape and fire ecology. The story of drought's multiple roles in shaping Arizona's landscape and fire ecology requires a brief examination of some of the aforementioned factors and how they have varied over time. A highly simplified history of the effects of land management on fire ecology, based on a combination of tree-ring and instrumental fire history records, shows that Arizona low- and mid-elevation forests (~6000-8000 feet) were subject to relatively frequent low intensity surface fires prior to European settlement2. Fires were more frequent in low elevation forests and fire frequency decreased as moist conditions increased with elevation. With the introduction of logging, many large stem trees were removed from Arizona forests (in particular, Ponderosa pine forests). Historic livestock grazing and fire suppression promoted the development of dense stands of younger, thinstemmed trees, commonly known as "dog hair thickets." This condition now threatens Arizona forests, especially the remaining large trees, through competition, possibly easier spread of mortality through disease and insect vectors, and by fueling increasingly extensive high intensity crown fires3. Historical sources of fire ignition have typically included natural ignitions from lightning and fires set by Native Americans before European settlement. In recent years, human ignitions have increased, especially during the pre-monsoon season, due in part to population increases, increased use of forests by recreationalists, runaway campfires set by migrants, and arson. In addition to the effects of the aforementioned land management practices on forest stand density, fire spread is now enhanced by the introduction of invasive species, such as some exotic grasses. Moreover, the development of homes in the wildland-urban interface, as well as in formerly isolated forested rural locations, increases the vulnerability of Arizonans to fire. Drought serves as a catalyst for fire in Arizona. The susceptibility of Arizona grasslands and forests to fire is mediated, in part, by individual dry years and by persistent drought. Tree-ring studies show that the largest pre-1900 fire years were all characterized by significantly below average Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) values4. In the modern period, this relationship still holds true. However, regional-scale fire events often occurred a year or two after a wet year or years. This wet/dry cycle indicates that wet seasons and years are important in developing sufficient fine fuels (understory vegetation) to generate a regional fire event5. Some of the largest fires in pre-historic and recent
Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan, 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United States since AD 1700. In C. D. Allen, editor, Fire effects in southwestern forests, Proceedings of the Second La Mesa Fire Symposium, March 29-31, 1994, Los Alamos, New Mexico. U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. 216 pp. 3 Allen, Craig D., Melissa Savage, Donald A. Falk, Kieran F. Suckling, Thomas W. Swetnam, Todd Schulke, Peter B. Stacey, Penelope Morgan, Martos Hoffman, and Jon T. Klingel, 2002. Ecological Restoration Of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad Perspective. Ecological Applications, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 14181433. 4 Swetnam and Baisan, 1996 5 Swetnam and Baisan, 1996
2
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
10
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
records were synchronized by this combination of extreme multi-year shifts from moist to drought conditions. Thus, drought synchronizes regional-scale fire. Drought episodes can cause major changes to the age structure and species composition of forests. The 1950's drought and associated bark beetle outbreaks killed large numbers of trees in the ponderosa forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands of the Colorado Plateau, Mogollon Rim, and Sky Islands of southern Arizona. Many of these dead trees persist as logs and snags (standing dead trees) within these forests and woodlands today. An unusual wet spell occurred in the Southwest from approximately 1976-1993 (with some dry seasons and years during this period), and many tree seedlings, grasses and herbaceous plants established within Arizona forests and woodlands during this period6. This new plant growth probably resulted in increased competition among plants for water (and stress) during the ensuing drought. The new plant growth also provided additional fuels for rapid spread and high intensity of wildfire during the past decade. In summary, drought plays multiple roles in creating conditions that promote fire in Arizona. Persistent drought can stress trees, reduce resistance to insect outbreaks and pathogens, and over time cause directly and indirectly forest mortality and changes in the composition and structure of forests. Drought reduces fuel moisture, and persistent drought can substantially reduce the moisture of large, heavy dead and live fuels; thus drought serves as a catalyst to fire. Finally, the switch of climatic conditions from relatively moist to extremely dry (i.e., drought) over the course of several years results in the synchronization of regional-scale fire across the Southwest during drought years. E. Potential Impact of Simultaneous Drought Episodes on the Salt and Colorado River Systems
A major concern in drought planning is assessing the drought vulnerability for water providers. Central Arizona encompasses water providers in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties who serve approximately 4,000,000 or 80% of Arizona's population in 2000. Water providers in Maricopa County serve approximately 3,000,000 people. Central Arizona is unique in that it relies on the conjunctive management of two renewable water supply systems (the Central Arizona Project and the Salt River Project), as well as enormous amounts of groundwater in storage. Most water providers and water users in central Arizona rely on one or both of the renewable water supply sources as well as significant amounts of groundwater. A fundamental question in drought planning is what is the potential impact of a simultaneous drought on the Colorado River and Salt River system on water providers in central Arizona. The degree of impact from a simultaneous sustained drought on water providers in central Arizona is a complex issue. There have been overlapping drought events on the Colorado River and Salt River systems. However, the Salt River Project system is more vulnerable to drought impacts. The Salt River Project has a smaller drainage area (13,000 square miles) and smaller storage capacity (4,000,000 acre-feet) than the Colorado River system water delivered through the Central Arizona Project (242,000 square miles and over 60,000,000 acre-feet of storage). The history of water deliveries shows the difference in
6 Swetnam, T.W., and J. Betancourt, 1998. Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate 11:3128-3147.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
11
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
vulnerability between the two systems. There are extended periods, such as the present drought, and the 1950's drought when Salt River Project water deliveries have been reduced due to insufficient storage in the system reservoirs. In contrast, to date, there have been no instances of delivery curtailments on the Colorado River system due to insufficient water supply. However, if the current drought continues, there may shortage declarations on the Colorado River by 2007, which would impact Central Arizona Project water deliveries. The potential impact from a simultaneous sustained drought on both the Salt and Colorado River systems, assuming that drought was extensive and sustained enough to cause shortage declarations on the Colorado system, are estimated to include the following: Reduction in water available for irrigated agriculture o CAP delivers approximately 500,000 acre-feet for agricultural water uses, which could be curtailed, including Indian and non-Indian uses, o SRP would likely reduce deliveries to its agriculture customers, Potential Reduction in water available for SRP municipal customers, o Historically, CAP has delivered 800,000 acre-feet of water to SRP to protect SRP customers from shortage, Increase in groundwater pumping, o SRP would increase reliance on its well fields to make up reduced surface water available for its deliveries, o CAP in cooperation with the AWBA would recover water stored to protect CAP M&I customers from shortage, o Municipal water providers would also increase groundwater pumping to make up any shortages from SRP or CAP deliveries, It should be noted that the foregoing impacts, while significant, require both systems to be in a sustained drought at the same time for an extended period. It is unclear from the instrument record or paleoclimate record if such a sustained event would occur at times when reservoir levels were already at low levels. In addition, the availability of significant volumes of groundwater in storage in central Arizona, both as recharge credits and native groundwater could serve to mitigate the impacts of the reduced surface water supply. However, the development and delivery of new water supplies or recovery of stored credits would likely increase water costs during and after the drought event significantly. F. Planning and Institutional Sensitivities to Long-Term Drought Planning
As stated previously drought impacts vary by sector and region. The role of Arizona's state government in planning for drought events and assisting those impacted by drought may be limited by planning and institutional constraints. At the planning level, long-term planning is constrained by a lack of long-term data. The ability to define the appropriate thresholds and triggers for drought declaration and actions requires significant data at the local level. The current quality of available data may limit the ability to adequately forecast droughts or to predict impacts with sufficient advanced warning to prevent or mitigate the impacts. The drought plan will consider the monitoring and data gathering network necessary to provide adequate data for
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 12
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
planning. At present the type and density of instruments to measure key drought indicators is not sufficient to predict drought or the impacts that may result. The ultimate goal of the drought plan will be to develop mitigation plans to prevent drought events from producing impacts. Potential mitigation strategies require a change from the status quo and will cross over from technical analysis to political and institutional impacts. As such, the potential mitigation strategies will need to be developed through coordination with local jurisdictions and stakeholders. The coordinated effort would build consensus proposals that fit the local experience and need. As present, the current plan is constrained to conceptual level mitigation strategies. The potential mitigation strategies may require the development of: Alternative water supplies, Additional water storage, Different land management strategies, Increased conservation and drought awareness, State mandates for conservation and response, and Funding mechanisms to support drought planning and mitigation. Finally, the current role of the State in long-term drought planning is to provide the information and tools to assist local jurisdictions in responding to drought events. The plan does not contemplate change to the existing regulatory structure or authority. However, to develop mitigation strategies, a change from the status quo is necessary. Such changes to the existing regulatory structure could be considered in the future as mitigation strategies are developed. Future changes might include items such as extending the assured water rules to water providers outside of the Active Management Areas and imposing mandatory water conservation requirements. If these changes are contemplated, they would need to be developed through a stakeholder participation process to build a consensus proposal. G. Jurisdictional and Institutional Issues
As described above, climate, geology, and topography influence where and how water is used in Arizona. However, jurisdictional and institutional constraints also play an important role in the management of these supplies. Land ownership in Arizona is comprised of private, Tribal, Federal and State lands. Jurisdiction over how water and lands are managed is often outside of the State's authority, and inevitably left to the Courts to decide. Federal lands account for over 60 percent of Arizona, including tribal lands. The Arizona State Land Department also accounts for nearly nine million acres in Arizona, however, state land is not considered to be a public entity, rather it is land which has been set aside to be leased whereby the monies are be used to benefit public education in Arizona. These three agencies control approximately 20 percent (Forest Service), 16 percent (Bureau of Land Management), and 13percent (Arizona State Land Department) of all land in Arizona, respectively. Indian reservations also account for 27percent of lands in Arizona while the remaining 24 percent is split between individual/corporate owners (17%) and other public lands (7%)7. Thus, incorporating the Federal Government
7
(National Agricultural Statistics Service 2002)
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
13
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
and Tribal Government in planning is essential to the success of drought management in this state. Water laws have been developed to address specific issues that have arisen throughout Arizona's (and Western) history. The Federal government, based on a system of interstate compacts, international treaties, and Supreme Court Decisions, manages Colorado River supplies. Surface water law (other than the Colorado River) is based on historic diversions, giving the oldest water uses (regardless of what the water is used for) priority in times of shortage (Doctrine of Prior Appropriation: first in time, first in right). Groundwater is considered a public water supply but is only vigorously managed in central Arizona in the state's five Active Management Areas. Even under this management framework, historic groundwater uses were "grandfathered" in perpetuity. Outside of the Active Figure 2: Federal Lands in Arizona Management Areas, groundwater use is not managed except for requiring a permit to drill a well. This existing framework further limits addressing statewide water management.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
14
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 3 Overview of Water Supplies in Arizona
Although an arid state, Arizona has a diverse array of water resources. These water resources are composed primarily of surface water from rivers and streams, groundwater in underground aquifers, and effluent or reclaimed water. The availability of these resources is constrained by four main factors: 1. Physical availability of the resource Is there enough "wet" water to meet users needs 2. Water quality Is the water chemistry compatible with water users' needs 3. Water rights and institutional barriers Do water users have legal access to the resource ("paper" water) 4. Infrastructure Do water users have sufficient infrastructure necessary to efficiently use the water supplies. The distribution of Arizona's water resources across the state reflects the impact of local and regional precipitation patterns, geology, and geography. These factors generally divide the state into three water resource regions, each with unique water resource characteristics. The three regions are: the Colorado Plateau, the Mogollon Highlands, and the Basin and Range. The distribution of water resources in each region reflects these factors. The physical availability and water quality of water resources is discussed in later sections of the report. Superimposed on each region are water rights and institutional barriers that may limit the availability of water resources regionally or locally. These limitations may include prior appropriation of available water through water rights decrees or ongoing litigation through water rights adjudications, water use management practices and regulations, endangered species concerns, and environmental considerations. These factors and limitations are discussed more fully in the following section. In addition, local infrastructure constraints may further limit the ability of a community or individual user to make full use of a water supply. Discussion of individual water users' infrastructure constraints is beyond the scope of the current study. The description of the water rights and institutional barriers is discussed in detail in this section. A. Colorado River Water
The Colorado River runs approximately 1,400 miles from Colorado's Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez in Mexico. The Colorado River Basin drains approximately 242,000 square miles of land and supplies water to two countries (Mexico and the United States), seven western states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California), and numerous Indian Tribes. Water from the Colorado River is diverted for many uses including agricultural, potable water supplies for cities and towns, industrial, and environmental. Early in the 20thcentury it was recognized that as these competing demands increased, it was necessary to develop a structure that would provide a longterm secure water supply for its many users. The development of Colorado River water law includes a long and sometimes contentious history. This is described in the "Law of the River", which includes Congressional acts,
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 15
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
international treaties and Supreme Court decisions. For the most part Western Water Law recognizes users that developed water supplies from rivers through the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation "first in time, first in right." However, concerns emerged in the upper reaches of the Colorado River Basin as significant development occurred in California and when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation for rivers that crossed multiple States regardless of State boundaries in Wyoming v. Colorado, June 5, 1922, 259 U.S. 419. In southern California, agricultural development in the Imperial Valley began to rely more and more on the Colorado River. However, the River was a unreliable supply during the critical growing season. In 1905, an abnormally high spring runoff resulted in the destruction of small earthen dams that had been constructed to divert Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley. The course of the River changed, flooding the Valley and increasing the size of the Salton Sea from 22 to 500 square miles8. The river flowed into the Valley for 16 months before it was returned to its original course. In that time, it destroyed homes and crops and heavily damaged highways, railroads, and irrigation works. This event was a major catalyst to control and regulate the River, including construction of Hoover Dam and the All American Canal 1) Colorado River Compact 1922 In light of these growing concerns, with the consent of the U.S. Congress in 1921, the Figure 3: Colorado River Basin seven Colorado River Basin states Source: US Bureau of Reclamation authorized the appointment of commissioners to negotiate a compact for the apportionment of the water supply of the Colorado River. Although the States were unable to negotiate an allocation of water for each of the States, an agreement was negotiated and signed by the seven appointed commissioners from each of the Colorado River Basin states in November 1922. The Colorado River Compact (Compact) divided the Colorado River Basin (see Figure 3) into the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, which are defined as those states or parts of states from which water naturally drains into the Colorado River above and below Lee Ferry, respectively. Lee Ferry is a point on the mainstream of the Colorado River approximately one mile below the mouth of the Paria River in northern Arizona and is
8 The Salton Sea is a sub-sea level lake in the low desert of southern California, located in the historic floodplain of the Colorado River. In the last one thousand years the River's course has been altered at least three times due to high flows, moving the River's flow to a western channel and forming a freshwater lake called Lake Cahuilla. Eventually, the River would return to its more easterly channel leaving the lake to evaporate.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
16
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
defined in the Compact as the dividing point between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin9. The Colorado River Compact was successful in apportioning to the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and a portion of Arizona) and to the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of water to each basin annually. Because the Colorado River Basin includes a portion of Mexico, this Compact recognized the right of Mexico to the use of water from the River, however, water for this purpose was to be met from the surplus of water over and above the amounts apportioned to the Upper and Lower Basins. Additionally, any burden that might arise because of a water treaty with Mexico was to be shared equally by the two basins. This Compact recognized that the ability of the Upper basin to meet the requirement to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin could be impacted by climatic factors, therefore the Upper Basin is only required to restrict its use so that the flow of the river at Lee Ferry would not be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years. The Compact also recognized existing users in stating in Article VIII of the Compact, "Present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River system are unimpaired by this compact." Although all the commissioners from each of the States signed the agreement, the agreement stated that Congress could not ratify the Colorado River Compact until the State Legislatures of each of the signatory States approved it. The Arizona Legislature was the only State that did not approve the Compact, which resulted in a modification to the Compact that allowed for six-state approval and consent of the U.S. Congress, discussed below in the Boulder Canyon Project Act. 2) Boulder Canyon Project Act - 1928 The Boulder Canyon Project Act (Project Act) authorized construction of the Hoover Dam and Power Plant and the All-American Canal. In addition, it also authorized Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an agreement whereby the 7.5 million acre-feet of water apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact would be apportioned as follows: to California, 4.4 million acre-feet per year; to Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet per year; and to Nevada, 0.3 million acre-feet per year. The three states, however, were unable to agree on the apportionment. . The provisions of the Project Act stipulated that it would take effect upon fulfillment of either of two conditions. The first was that all seven states ratify the Colorado River Compact. Because Arizona was not satisfied with the terms of the Compact, it became impossible to meet this condition. In fact, Arizona did not ratify the Compact until 1944. The second condition required that six of the states, including California, ratify the Compact, and that California agree to limit its consumptive use of water from the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre-feet, plus one-half of any surplus. With the exception of Arizona, all of the Colorado River Basin states ratified the Compact, and passage of the California Limitation Act in 192910 completed the conditions required to make the Project Act effective. President Herbert Hoover declared the Project Act effective, by proclamation, on June 25, 1929.
9 Lee Ferry, the dividing point between the Upper and Lower Basins is not the same as Lee's Ferry, an historic river crossing point located 1.3 miles upstream from the dividing point. (The CAP 1918 1968, Rich Johnson) 10 The California Limitation Act addressed the requirement for the consent of the US Congress to six-state approval of the Compact
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
17
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
3) Lower Basin State Agreements and Water Delivery Contracts 1931 1944 In 1931, entities within California entered into the California Seven-Party Agreement, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, to identify priorities among the major water users in the State, prior to entering into water delivery contracts with the users. In 1942 and 1944, the Secretary of the Interior also entered into water delivery contracts with the State of Nevada for 300,000 acre-feet. At this time, the U.S. and Mexico were negotiating an international treaty for a yet unspecified volume of water raising concerns in Arizona about its own entitlement11. As a result, Arizona not only entered into a contract with the Secretary for storage and delivery of Colorado River water for 2.8 million acre-feet, but as a part of this contract finally ratified the Colorado River Compact of 1922. 4) Mexican Treaty 1945 In 1945, a treaty between the United States and Mexico involving waters of the Colorado, Rio Grande and Tijuana Rivers was enacted to address, among other things, a fixed entitlement for Mexico of 1.5 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River. The Treaty also provided an additional 200,000 acre-feet in years of supply surplus (for a total of 1.7 million acre-feet). In years of extraordinary drought, Mexico's entitlement is to be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the U.S. are reduced. The 1945 Treaty dealt with the volumetric entitlement to Mexico, however, it was silent on the quality of that water to be delivered. In 1962, the government of Mexico formally protested to the United States government regarding the quality of Colorado River water that was being delivered to the Mexicali Valley. After 1962, numerous meetings and negotiations led to adoption of Minute 242, executed in 1973, which obligates the United States to implement measures that will maintain the salinity of the Colorado River waters delivered to Mexico at nearly the same quality as that diverted at Imperial Dam for use within the United States. On June 24, 1974, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was signed into law, providing for the physical works necessary to implement Minute 242 without permanent loss of water to the Colorado River Basin states. 5) Upper Colorado River Basin Compact - 1948 The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact divided the water apportioned to the Upper Basin by the Colorado River Compact between the five states with territory in the Upper Basin. Arizona was allocated 50,000 acre-feet per year with the remainder of the Upper Basin entitlement divided according to the following percentages: Colorado, 51.75; New Mexico, 11.25; Utah, 23.00; and Wyoming, 14.00. 6) Colorado River Storage Project 1956 In 1956, Congress authorized the Secretary to construct, operate, and maintain the following projects in the Upper Basin, including dams, reservoirs, power plants, transmission facilities, and appurtenant works: 1) Curecanti consisting of three dams and reservoirs on the Gunnison River in Colorado: Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal; 2) Flaming Gorge located on the Green River on the Wyoming-Utah border;
11
The CAP 1918 1968, R. Johnson p. 19
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
18
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
3) Navajo (dam and reservoir only) located on the San Juan River in New Mexico; and 4) Glen Canyon located on the mainstream of the Colorado River on the UtahArizona border. 7) Arizona v. California - 1964 On August 13, 1952, the State of Arizona filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against California and seven agencies within that State to resolve the contention by California that the Central Arizona Project should not be authorized because Arizona did not have enough entitlement from the Colorado River to make this project feasible. At California's insistence, the U.S. Congress would not authorize the Central Arizona Project until Arizona's right to the necessary Colorado River entitlement was clarified. California contended that Arizona's access and utilization of water from the rivers located within the State of Arizona (specifically, the Gila River, a tributary of the Colorado River) reduced the amount of water that Arizona should be able to divert from the Colorado. Conversely, Arizona contended that the Colorado River Compact gave Arizona the right to use its tributaries in addition to the 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River entitlement. In the complaint, Arizona alleged, that its entitlement to Colorado River water was adversely affected by California and that its existing and prospective projects were threatened. The Decree, handed down in 1964, confirmed that Congress had already apportioned, through the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the entitlement of water to the three Lower Basin states as follows: Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet; California, 4.4 million acre-feet; and Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet. Any surplus above 7.5 million acre-feet was apportioned 50 percent to California and 50 percent to Arizona, except that Nevada was given the right to contract for 4 percent of the excess, which would come out of Arizona's share. The Decree also confirmed each of the Lower Basin State's entitlements to the flow of the tributaries within their boundaries, supporting Arizona's utilization of water from its inState rivers, separate from its entitlement to its full 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. The Decree also addressed the division of water in times of shortage stating, "In the event that there is insufficient mainstream water available for release then the Secretary, after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights12 in order of their priority dates (regardless of state lines) and after consultation with the parties to major delivery contracts may apportion any remaining water available for consumptive use consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act." In its Opinion, the Court dismissed sharing of shortages through equitable apportionment or by the law of prior appropriation stating that, "The Secretary should be free to choose among the recognized methods of apportionment or devise a reasonable method of his own13." The approach to sharing of shortages was amended later as a result of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, which gave present perfected rights, users served under contracts, and Federal reservations priority over the Central Arizona Project. 8)
12 13
Colorado River Basin Project Act - 1968
See Attachment V for listing of present perfected rights Updating the Hoover Dam Documents
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
19
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
In 1947, Arizona Senators Robert McFarland and Carl Hayden introduced Senate Bill 1175 to authorize the Central Arizona Project, the first of many attempts by Arizona to construct a canal from the Colorado River to Central Arizona. After the decision in Arizona v. California and five years of negotiation President Lyndon Johnson signed the Colorado River Basin Project Act on September 30, 1968 authorizing construction of the Central Arizona Project in addition to other water development projects in the Upper Basin. In order to get a Bill passed, several concessions were made on the part of Arizona. A significant concession was a provision that allowed existing California, Arizona, and Nevada Colorado River Contractors to receive a priority over the Central Arizona Project in times when the useable supply from the River was inadequate to provide 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin States, with California's priority limited to its 4.4 million acrefoot entitlement. The lack of a State Groundwater Code in Arizona was also used in the arguments against the Central Arizona Project. As a result, Section 304(a) of the Act contains a prohibition against water from the Central Arizona Project being used to irrigate lands not having a recent history of irrigation (except lands located on Indian Reservations). "Recent history of irrigation" has been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to mean irrigation at some time between September 30, 1958, and September 30, 1968, the date on which the Act became law. The Colorado River Basin Project Act was also instrumental in addressing on an annual basis the operation of the reservoirs of the Colorado River system to ensure that the needs of the users can be met and to conduct long-range assessments for the availability of water supplies. The Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to propose criteria for the "coordinated long-range operation of the reservoirs" in the Upper Basin with the operation of the reservoirs in the Lower Basin. Furthermore, the Act established the development of an Annual Operating Plan, in consultation with representatives of the seven Basin States to determine: (1) the projected operation of the Colorado River reservoirs to satisfy projected purposes under varying hydrologic and climatic conditions; (2) the quantity of water considered necessary as September 30 of each year, to be in storage in the Upper Basin reservoirs as required by the Act; (3) water available for delivery pursuant to the Mexican Treaty and Minute 242; (4) whether the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream users in the Lower Basin will be met under "normal," "surplus," or "shortage" condition: and (5) whether water apportioned to, but unused by one or more Lower Basin States exists and can be used to satisfy beneficial consumptive use requests of mainstream user in other Lower Basin States as provided in the Decree. B. Availability of the Colorado River Water
When the entitlements were identified in the Colorado River Compact in 1922, the river data showed an average annual flow of approximately 16 million acre-feet. At that time concerns were focused more on development of the river's supply in California and protecting development potential in the other States along the river, especially from the perspective of Colorado where the river originates. Since that time the mean annual flow of the Colorado River is estimated to be 14 million acre-feet. Currently, the Lower Basin is fully utilizing its 7.5 million acre-foot entitlement. Upper Basin demand is approximately 5 million acre-feet and Mexico is utilizing its full 1.5 million acre-foot entitlement.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 20
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
"Shortages" on the River are determined separately in the Upper Basin from the Lower Basin. For the Lower Basin, conditions are assessed through the development of the Annual Operating Plan and a determination is made as to whether the system will be operated under "normal", "surplus" or "shortage" conditions based on the volume of water in Lake Mead, the projected inflow to the reservoir, and the current demand for water in the Lower Basin. Normal conditions exist when the annual pumping and/or release from Lake Mead is sufficient to satisfy 7.5 million acre-feet of annual consumptive use. Surplus conditions exist when the Secretary determines that mainstream water is available in excess of normal conditions. A surplus condition allows water to be divided among the three Lower Basin States with 50 percent to California, 46 percent to Arizona, and 4 percent to Nevada. Additionally, if all water demands for contractors in the U.S. are met during surplus or flood conditions, the Secretary may allow the additional delivery of 200,000 acre-feet to Mexico. A shortage condition exists when the Secretary determines that there is insufficient mainstream water available to satisfy annual consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet. An elevation trigger has been developed to identify a shortage condition at 1000 feet above mean sea level, which is the elevation of the intake for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which develops and delivers Nevada's entitlement of 300,000 acre-feet. If projected inflows are insufficient to bring Lake Mead's elevation above 1000 feet and current demands meet or exceed 7.5 million acre-feet, the Secretary will declare a shortage on the River for the Lower Basin. Section 301(b) of the Basin Project Act states, "...that in any year in which, as determined by the Secretary, there is insufficient mainstream Colorado River water available for release to satisfy annual consumptive use of seven million five hundred thousand acre-feet in Arizona, California, and Nevada, diversions from the mainstream for the Central Arizona Project shall be so limited as to assure the availability of water in quantities sufficient to provide for the aggregate annual consumptive use by holders of present perfected rights, by other users in the State of California served under existing contracts with the United States by diversion works heretofore constructed, and by other existing Federal reservations in that State, of four million four hundred thousand acre-feet of mainstream water, and by users of the same character in Arizona and Nevada." Appendix V summarizes the priorities that apply within Arizona in the administration of Colorado River Mainstream Water and provides a listing of Colorado River contractors by priority order. C. The Central Arizona Project
Because of the foresight of individuals early in the development of Arizona's water supplies, the Central Arizona Project provides additional resources to the central, most populous portion of the State. As described above, the development of the Central Arizona Project took many decades, but with the enactment of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, the Central Arizona Project became a reality. Construction began in 1974 with water deliveries to the Phoenix area beginning in 1985. The canal was extended to the Tucson area and was determined to be complete in 1995. The total cost of the project was $3.6 billion. The Central Arizona Project canal runs 336 miles from Lake Havasu to the San Xavier Reservation, 14 miles south of the City of Tucson. The Central Arizona Project canal will deliver an average of 1.5 million acre feet of Colorado River water annually, but can, if necessary, deliver up to approximately 2 million acre feet.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 21
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Colorado River water is delivered to agricultural, industrial, Indian and municipal users in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties (see Figure 4). The Central Arizona Water Conservation District was created by Arizona Statute to manage the project and, through a contract with the Secretary of Interior, deliver water to contractors and subcontractors. The amount of water available to the Central Arizona Project was identified in the Contract as any portion of Arizona's entitlement remaining after the needs of senior rightholders are met, less 164,652 acre-feet for users along the Colorado River holding the same priority (see Priority 4, in Table 2 above). In 1981, the Secretary of the Interior issued a Record of Decision allocating water developed by the Central Arizona Project to Indian and non-Indian water users. Since that time, the allocations have been modified to address adjustments resulting from Indian water rights settlements and other agreements, Allocations have been identified primarily for two sectors - (1) Municipal and Industrial (M&I) and (2) Indian with any remaining or unused portion available for non-Indian Agriculture. Current municipal and industrial subcontracts total 556,680 acre-feet, divided among: cities, towns and water service organizations with Figure 4: Central Arizona Project definable growth patterns; copper mines; Source: Central Arizona Project electric power industries; the Arizona State Land Department for new development on State Lands; and Maricopa County for park development. Indian Communities who hold contracts through the U.S. for irrigation, domestic or other uses on within their communities currently total 388,906 acre-feet. In 1983, Secretary of the Interior Watt issued a revision of the Record of Decision that included a shortage sharing strategy. Although there are differences in interpretation of this document, the State of Arizona has interpreted the strategy to mean: first, delivery for miscellaneous uses would be reduced pro rata until exhausted; next, non-Indian agricultural uses would be reduced pro rata until exhausted; next, the Gila River Indian Community allocation would be reduced 25 percent and other Indian irrigation uses would be reduced 10 percent on a pro rata basis until exhausted; next, the non-Indian M&I uses would be reduced to 510,000 acre-feet. Thereafter, the remaining water contracted for by 11 Indian Tribal entities under existing contracts and 75 percent of the Gila River Indian Community allocation would share a priority with 510,000 acre-feet of M&I nonIndian uses14. Following the revision to the Record of Decision, the Secretary of the Interior and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District entered into contracts for delivery of water to several municipal and industrial water users that included inconsistent shortage sharing
14
Arizona Department of Water Resources CAP Shortage Sharing History, T. Carr, July 28, 1998
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
22
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
provisions. Additionally, as claims by several Indian Communities were settled, the allocations for M&I and Indian users were adjusted based on these negotiated settlements, some to the detriment of users who were not party to the settlements, further confusing the shortage sharing strategy. Both the State of Arizona and the Department of the Interior agreed that the current conflicting language could lead to litigation in the event of a shortage. The recent negotiations between the parties involved in the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement provided an opportunity to address several issues, including finding a solution to the shortage sharing issue. As a result, a single shortage sharing strategy has been developed through the Settlement Agreement that will be incorporated into all future modified contracts or subcontracts. The Shortage Sharing Strategy that was negotiated through the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement requires non-Indian agricultural subcontracts to be relinquished and the relinquished subcontract allocations to be combined with uncontracted water. The subcontracts for non-Indian agricultural water are currently based on a percentage basis of water available in each year. The shortage sharing strategy modifies the quantification of non-Indian Agricultural allocations from a percentage, to an acre-foot per year amount. In the event of a shortage, non-Indian Agricultural uses will still be the first to be reduced. Although most planning studies envision shortage declarations that will result in no water being available for the nonIndian agricultural priority contracts, there is also the possibility that a portion of this water would not be made available as result of higher uses by municipal and industrial sub-contractors and Indian contractors (due to the fact the non-Indian agricultural portion includes the unused sub-contract and contract allocations). In anticipation of these possibilities, the proposed shortage sharing criteria call for an allocation of available water on a pro-rata basis. The measure of the pro rata calculation will be based on the amount of recent use. The exception to this method is that portion of the Gila River Indian Community's water use that it has under contract, but did not put to use because distribution systems have not yet been completed. For M&I and Indian uses, the revised shortage sharing criteria eliminates many of the conflicting language and ambiguities that existed in the prior contracts. The new shortage sharing strategy is based on a fixed volume for the Indian priority pool and the M&I priority pool15. Furthermore, the strategy eliminates the steps that were used in the previous criteria and replaces it with a true co-equal priority. For any volume of water supply that may be available, an established formula calculates the total amount of water in the Indian pool and the M&I pool. The distribution of the available supply within each of the pools is then determined based on the percent of water recently used prior to the shortage. The sharing of shortages among Indian contractors is more complicated due to pre-existing conditions in several of the Indian contracts. Even with a shortage sharing strategy in place, the fact that water from the Central Arizona Project has the lowest priority on the Colorado River system means that users are highly vulnerable to shortages. To address this issue a mechanism exists within Arizona's
15
The M&I pool enlarges after the year 2044 in recognition of the conversion from non-Indian agricultural priority to M&I priority allowed in the Cliff Dam replacement contract.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
23
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
water management structure to decrease the potential impact from future shortages. In 1996, Governor Symington and the State Legislature created the Arizona Water Banking Authority. Until the Arizona Water Banking Authority was created, Arizona did not use its full 2.8 million acre-foot share of Colorado River water. Without the Arizona Water Banking Authority, it was anticipated that Arizona would not have used its full allocation until the year 2030. During that interim period, the accumulated amount of water left in the Colorado River would have amounted to approximately 14 million acre-feet, most of it going to southern California. Water managers recognized that leaving a portion of Arizona's water in the Colorado River was a lost opportunity and that by storing Arizona's unused apportionment, a supply could be available to offset future shortages on the Central Arizona Project system. To date, the Arizona Water Banking Authority has stored approximately 2 million acre-feet of Colorado River water in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. Additionally, the Arizona Water Banking Authority stores water to protect Arizona's other Priority Four water users, located on the mainstream of the River (e.g., Mohave County Water Users). In times of shortage, stored water will be recovered to offset Central Arizona Project delivery shortages experienced by municipal and industrial subcontractors. D. Surface Water Other Than Colorado River Water
Surface water from lakes, rivers and streams is another supply used in Arizona. Surface water is defined as "Waters of all sources, flowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in definite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, floodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface."[Arizona Revised Statutes 45101] These surface waters are subject to the "doctrine of prior appropriation," which means that the first person to put water to beneficial and reasonable use acquires a superior right to later appropriators. This person, or their successors, has the right to use a specified amount of water for a stated beneficial use each year, subject only to the rights of prior appropriators. To make best use of surface
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 24
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
water when and where it is needed, storage reservoirs and conveyance systems have been constructed throughout the state. Major reservoir storage systems are located on the Salt, Verde, Gila and Agua Fria Rivers. Flow in the Santa Cruz River in the Santa Cruz, Tucson and Pinal Active Management Areas is extremely variable with effluent-dominated perennial reaches downstream from wastewater treatment plants in the Santa Cruz and Tucson Active Management Areas. In the southeastern part of the state, the San Pedro River supplies water for agricultural use. There are a number of other smaller streams and surface water impoundments throughout the state that provide a local water supply. 1) Surface Water Law Some of the present day provisions of Arizona surface water law can be traced back prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago in 1848 by which much of Arizona and New Mexico was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico. [Water A review of Rights in Arizona, Fred Struckmeyer, Jr. and Jeremy Butler, April 1960] As Arizona was originally part of the New Mexico Territory, the Territorial legislators addressed water rights in 1851 by providing "owners of tillable lands" the right to construct public or private ditches to access water supplies and further allowed these facilities to run through other properties, so long as those whose lands were being crossed were compensated. This implies a nonriparian approach to appropriating water supplies as landowners who are not necessarily adjacent to the channel were allowed to initiate a beneficial use of these supplies. Arizona became a separate territory in 1864 and the first Arizona Territorial Legislature took action on surface water by declaring: "All streams, lakes, and ponds of water capable of being used for the purposes of navigation or irrigation, are hereby declared to be public property; and no individual or corporation shall have the right to appropriate them exclusively to their own private use, except under such equitable regulations and restrictions as the legislature shall provide for that purpose16." Later that same year the Territorial Legislature adopted a water code for the Territory, named the Howell Code after William T. Howell of Tucson who was appointed Code Commissioner. The Howell Code declared all rivers, creeks, and streams as public supplies and granted all inhabitants of the Territory the right to construct canals to access "the necessary water" to irrigate their lands "...from any convenient river, creek, or stream of running water." Additionally, the Howell Code addressed shortages in stating "...that during scarcity, the owners of fields shall have preference according to the dates of their respective titles, or occupation of the land, the oldest having preference." Even though the Territorial Legislature provided the ability to appropriate water for beneficial use, they did not address the mechanism to do so. This was not immediately an issue until increasing development coupled with drought towards the end of the 19th Century resulted in conflicts among users, especially on the Salt and Gila Rivers where development of agricultural lands was increasing significantly. In 1893, the Territorial Legislature required new water appropriations to be posted at the point of diversion and recorded with the County Recorder. The priority date of the water right was date of the "recording" of the notice, if the water was subsequently put to a beneficial use, "within a reasonable time thereafter." This recording system remained in place until 1919, when the newly formed State of Arizona enacted the 1919 Public Water Code, which has essentially changed very little over time and makes up the
16
Arizona Bill of Rights, Article 22
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
25
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
majority of the present Water Code (found in ARS 45-141, et. seq.). Now known as the Public Water Code, this law provides that a person must apply for and obtain a permit in order to appropriate surface water. Although the 1919 Public Water Code addressed the means to perfect a surface water right for appropriators after the Code's enactment, appropriators prior to 1919 still were not statutorily recognized. A registry of all pre-1919 water rights claims was established in 1974 as a result of the Water Rights Registration Act, which allowed individuals alleging a pre-1919 surface water right to file a claim. This has resulted in over three decades of judicial proceedings to determine the extent and priority of water rights in the Gila River system and in the Little Colorado River system and the impact on post 1919 permits through the Gila River Adjudication and the Little Colorado River Adjudication. After the enactment of the Water Rights Registration Act, several entities filed petitions with the Arizona State Land Department (the Agency responsible at the time for water rights) to determine the water rights in the Salt River, the Verde River and its tributaries, the Gila River (both the Upper and portions of the Lower Gila River including the Agua Fria River), Little Colorado River, the San Pedro River and its tributaries. At the time, there was litigation pending in federal court, which sought an adjudication of the Santa Cruz River watershed in Pima and Santa Cruz counties. In November 1981, the Arizona Supreme Court adjudications were consolidated. Pursuant to statute, summons were issued in both adjudications and served on potential claimants (all persons listed in the property tax assessments in each watershed and on all persons in the watershed who had, at the time, any kind of water rights filing on record with the Arizona Department of Water Resources, which was created in 1980 and now headed State water rights filings and permits). The summons required the filing of a statement of claimant with if the person claimed a water use in the watershed. Nearly 25,000 parties in the Gila River Adjudication have filed more than 86,600 statements of claimant, and over 3,500 parties have filed over 12,600 claims in the Little Colorado River Adjudication17.
Figure 5: Location of Tribal lands in Arizona
Source: Dept of Water Resources
17
Among these statements of
These totals include potential claimants who were served new use summons, those who have been initiated a new claim between July 1, 1991 and December 31, 2000, and who filed a claim as a result.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
26
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
claimant are several Indian Communities and Federal entities. This is significant in that in 1908 the U.S. Supreme Court determined in United States v. Winters, that federal reservations were allocated enough water at the time the reservation was established to meet the purposes of the reservation - predating the surface water rights held by many non-Indian users. Many parties have engaged in negotiations to resolve Indian and Federal Reserved water rights by settlement. These efforts have resulted in the Maricopa County Superior Court's approval, following Congressional approval, of six settlement agreements of Indian reserved rights the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Fort McDowell Indian Community, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe (only the claims to the Salt River), the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and the Tohono O'odham (although this has not yet been implemented). Negotiations to resolve the water right claims of several other Indian tribes have actively continued for several years. In 2003, the U.S. Congress approved the Zuni Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement in the Little Colorado River Adjudication. Currently, Congress is considering another Indian water rights settlement act, the largest is U.S. History the Gila River Indian Community. Although these settlements do not completely resolve the pending adjudications, the final Decrees will establish the existence and ownership of claimed water rights as well as important attributes of the water rights including location of diversions, water uses, quantity of water used, and date of priority of water rights. E. Groundwater
Groundwater has long been an important reliable source for many parts of this State. However, groundwater pumping over many decades has resulted in overdraft in some parts of the State. Overdraft occurs when more groundwater is withdrawn than is replaced by natural or artificial recharge. Decreasing reliance on groundwater supplies in Arizona, while maintaining the state's economy, has proven to be a complicated and challenging task. The recognition of the need to manage the State's groundwater resources has been a long process culminating with the development and adoption of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act. 1) History of Groundwater Law in Arizona The history of groundwater management in Arizona did not begin with the passage of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act. The increasing need for groundwater has created a long history of litigation. Although surface water law was developed through constitutional and statutory provisions, groundwater law has been interpreted from common laws through the courts 18. Subsurface waters were separately identified, by the Courts, as either flowing in underground streams or as percolating through the soil beneath the land surface. Beginning as far back as 1904, the Arizona Territorial Supreme Court adopted the common law rule that percolating water was the property of the overlying landowner and not subject to appropriation as surface water19. This decision was reinforced in 1918
Desmond D. Connal, Jr., 1982, A History of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act, Arizona Law Journal, pp 313 344. 19 Howard v. Perrin, 8, Ariz. 347, 76 P. 460 (1904), aff'd, 200 U.S. 71 (1906)
18
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
27
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
when the courts classified subsurface spring water as non-appropriable groundwater20. In 1926, subsurface water flowing in natural channels between well-defined banks, was affirmed by the courts to be subject to appropriation21. In 1931, the courts declared percolating water not to be part of an underground stream or sub-flow, again affirming groundwater as a non-appropriable water supply. Additionally, the burden of proving an underground stream was placed on the person who is claiming the existence of such water for appropriation22. In the 1930's, the combination of increased cotton prices, improved technology in well pumping efficiency, and the availability of inexpensive power led to increased groundwater pumping. As a result, individual well owners experienced declining water levels and difficulty producing water. Well owners began to compete for the supply as adjacent wells impacted each other, leading to litigation. In response to growing concerns over increased groundwater pumping, in 1938 the first commission to study groundwater was appointed by Governor Stanfield. The only thing the commission was successful in accomplishing was convincing the legislature of the need to appropriate funds to have the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigate and prepare a report on groundwater conditions in the state. The report, issued by the USGS in 1943, found that groundwater depletion would continue to increase further, as more lands were developed for farming. In order to limit the expansion of agricultural development, existing irrigation districts favored making Arizona's groundwater a publicly owned, instead of a privately owned resource. This would ensure that existing farmers would have the priority to continue farming and utilize the water supply, without competition from new farming operations. As a result of the USGS report, two bills were introduced in the 1945 legislative session. These bills would have 1) quantified and appropriated groundwater among the existing users; 2) limited or eliminated additional farming operations and 3) required the registration of all irrigation wells, however, neither bill was passed. At the same time the state was struggling with the groundwater situation, some of the state's top officials were also working on augmenting the State's existing supplies through conveyance of Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona as discussed in the previous section. In what would only be the beginning of the federal government's role in moving the state towards legislative groundwater management, the Bureau of Reclamation declared that the Central Arizona Project would not be approved until Arizona took steps to restrict agriculture irrigated with groundwater. In response, Governor Osborn reintroduced both bills in a special session. The well registration bill, which only required the registration of all wells throughout the state, was better received and became the Groundwater Code of 1945. It was immediately recognized that the 1945 Code did nothing to stop agricultural development and again in 1948 the federal government threatened to eliminate funding for the Central Arizona Project. A Groundwater Code was finally enacted in 1948, after six special sessions, that provided for designation of ten critical areas within the state (defined as areas without sufficient groundwater to provide irrigation for cultivated lands at current rates of withdrawal), prohibited the expansion of agriculture irrigated with groundwater within the
McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1, 5, 176 P.568, 569 (1918) Pima Farms Co. v. Proctor, 30 Ariz. 96, 245 Pac. 369 (1926) 22 Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65, 73, 4 P. 2d 369 (1931), reh. 39 Ariz. 367, 7 P. 2d 254 (1932)
20 21
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
28
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
critical groundwater areas, and allowed existing pumping to continue. Allowing continued pumping at historic levels in the critical groundwater areas and not apportioning groundwater use among the overlying landowners within the critical areas were problems. In response, a second groundwater study commission was, in 1951, charged with drafting a meaningful groundwater bill. The commission introduced a bill in the 1952 legislative session that would not only divide the state's groundwater basins into three separate management classifications but also, and most notably, changed the long-held common law rule of groundwater use to a publicly-owned resource subject to appropriation, however, this failed to pass. Additionally, during the 1950's, a series of Arizona Supreme Court decisions and additional groundwater study commissions failed to develop meaningful groundwater legislation. Meanwhile, the State's dependence on groundwater was continuing to increase. Coupled with extended droughts on the Salt and Verde River watersheds between 1942 and 1948 and again between 1953 and 1957, groundwater was legally being pumped at rates that far exceeded recharge23. The concept that the water beneath the land belonged to the landowner, together with the doctrine of reasonable use, encouraged landowners to pump as much water as they could use without regard to the impact on neighboring wells. The fact that all pumping from the common source affects all the overlying was still largely ignored. Although the 1948 Code put restrictions on development of new agricultural lands (although it lacked any enforcement provisions), it was silent on obtaining water to supply new non-agricultural development. Cities and towns relied on transporting groundwater from one location (where the well is located) to another location where the water is put to use. Although the area of pumping and the area of use were usually within the water service area of the water provider, in some instances water was being pumped from outside the service area and transported back to the service area for domestic and industrial uses. This situation would lead the state towards yet more complicated litigation. In fact, one of the issues that ultimately led to the development of groundwater management in Arizona was the transportation of groundwater. In a series of decisions between 1969 and 1974, the Arizona Supreme Court tried to tackle the issue of transportation of groundwater. In response to a lawsuit filed in 1969, the court issued an injunction against the City of Tucson prohibiting the transportation of groundwater from its well fields in the Avra and Altar Valleys, which had been designated as a critical area24. The Court held that the property right in percolating waters was only a right to use the water, limited by reasonable use, on overlying land, not ownership of the source. Subsequently, in 1970, the Court modified its injunction on Tucson based on surface water statute (ARS 45-147) for determining appropriative rights which gives preference to municipal and domestic uses over agricultural uses. The Court interpreted the statute to mean that municipal uses were higher in priority to agricultural uses and allowed Tucson to purchase and retire irrigated farmlands and transport the "annual historical maximum use" of groundwater applied to the irrigated acreage25. This allowed the City of Tucson to annually pump the highest amount of groundwater used on
Beddome, Larry. Undated Publication. History of Surface Water Law in Arizona and within the Salt River Valley: To Protect Our Water Supply. 12 p 24 Jarvis v. State Land Department (Jarvis I), 104 Ariz. 527, 456 P. 2d. 385 (1969) 25 Jarvis v. State Land Department (Jarvis II), 106 Ariz. 506, 479 P. 2d. 169 (1970)
23
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
29
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
the farm in a single year, thus allowing more pumping than ever. In 1974, the Court finally modified its previous decision and limited the pumping by the City of Tucson to 50 percent of the "annual historic maximum use26." During this time, what is often considered the single event that prompted the passage of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, was being argued in the Arizona Supreme Court, Farmers Investment Company v. Bettwy, 113 Ariz. 520, 558 P 2d. 14 (1976). Anamax, a mining company south of Tucson, was constructing a well in the SahuaritaContinental Critical Groundwater Area to provide water for its mining operations several miles away to mines located outside the critical groundwater area. Farmers Investment Company, who owned approximately 7,000 acres of farmland within the critical groundwater area, sued to stop Anamax from completing its well, claiming that the use of the water was outside "the land from which the water was taken" and violated the reasonable use doctrine established in (Bristor v. Cheatham, (Bristor II), rev. 75 Ariz. 227, 255 P2d. 173 (1953))27. In its decision, the Court recognized that the State had been committed to the reasonable use doctrine in an earlier case (Bristor II) and had operated for almost 50 years in this manner. In favor of Farmers Investment Company, the Court confirmed that under the doctrine of reasonable use water could not be pumped from one area and transported to another area, even if both areas overly a common source, if other wells suffered injury or damage. The Court went further, based on the same opinion, and limited the City of Tucson to withdrawals in the amount pumped before 1972, the date of its intervention in the case. In summary, the Court gave Farmers Investment Company the right to seek an injunction against the mines and the City of Tucson from transporting groundwater28. The impact of this decision was a great blow to the second and third largest water users in the state. Farmers Investment Company was persuaded to forgo its injunction, rather choosing to seek a settlement. However, this did not end the legal interpretation of the phrase "the land from which the water is taken" and the issue of transportation of groundwater from the critical groundwater areas remained uncertain. In 1976, the mines and the cities formed a tenuous alliance. The mines' were primarily interested in changing the transportation rules. The cities shared, to some degree, this interest, however, their primary objective was to conserve groundwater for supplying the expanding urban areas29. The newly formed alliance approached the agricultural interests within the state to discuss possibilities for new groundwater legislation. The farming community was opposed to the transportation of groundwater, believing that it would increase the depletion of the farmer's water supply, and refused to participate. However, in 1977 the three parties were persuaded to come together by Senator Alfredo Guitierrez and Representative Burton Barr to draft amendments to the 1948 Code. Concurrently with the discussions on groundwater management, the Federal government again weighed in on the Central Arizona Project. President Carter announced that among
Jarvis v. State Land Department (Jarvis III), 113 Ariz. 520, 588 P. 2d. 14 (1976) Clark, Emmett C., Arizona Water Resources Management Act of 1977 (A Proposed Water Resources Code or Statute), University of Arizona College of Law, 1977, 116 pp 28 Desmond D. Connal, Jr., 1982, A History of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act, Arizona Law Journal, pp 313 344 29 Philip Higdon and Terrence W. Thompson, 1980, The 1980 Groundwater Management Code, Arizona Law Journal, pp 621 667
26 27
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
30
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
other water projects in the United States the Central Arizona Project would be cut from the federal budget. Although later removed from the "hit list", Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, warned that if Arizona failed to enact a groundwater code, the Central Arizona Project would be eliminated. In the spring of 1977, the amendments to the 1948 Code were passed. The provisions of the 1977 Act were "intended to apply only until a comprehensive plan providing for groundwater use, allocation, and distribution..." were implemented30. The 1977 Act established a permit system allowing for the transportation of groundwater (again, pending the adoption of a groundwater code) and created a twenty-five-member Groundwater Study Commission (Commission) that was charged with developing a comprehensive groundwater code for Arizona. The Commission was required to prepare a draft report by June 30, 1979 and a final bill by December 31, 1979. To address the lack of effective groundwater management throughout Arizona's history, a provision was included that the Commission's proposal would become law if the Legislature failed to enact groundwater legislation by September 7, 1981. It is important to note that only the agricultural, mining, and municipal interests were involved in the Groundwater Study Commission discussions. Private water companies and developers, who would become important as the 1980 Code was implemented, were not present. The Commission was given two years to develop a groundwater code and submit legislation that would be acceptable to the major water users in the State, ensuring its immediate passage. Coupled with the increasing pressure from the Federal government to make genuine on its threats to cancel financing of the Central Arizona Project, the Commission was faced with balancing conflicting interests in a way that would ultimately become law, and doing so under the continuing pressure of a deadline. 2) The 1980 Groundwater Management Act In 1979 the Groundwater Study Commission released its draft report and in1980 the legislature passed the Groundwater Management Act. The Groundwater Management Act established the Arizona Department of Water Resources, with a Director appointed by the Governor, to administer its provisions. . The Arizona Department of Water Resources was charged with management of all groundwater resources in Arizona facilitate by the creation of four initial active management areas: Phoenix, Pinal, Prescott, and Tucson, and the formation of two irrigation non-expansion areas: St Johns and Douglas. The Groundwater Management Act also contains a number of important groundwater management components that are briefly summarized in the following sections. a. Management Goals and Management Plans Each of the initial Active Management Areas was assigned a "safe-yield" management goal except for the Pinal Active Management Area, which was assigned a goal that allows for economically feasible agricultural use of groundwater while preserving future water supplies for non-irrigation uses. The Code defines safe-yield as "...a groundwater management goal, which attempts to achieve and thereafter maintain a long-term balance between the annual amount of groundwater withdrawn in an active management area and the annual amount of natural and artificial recharge in the active management
30
Clark, Emmett C., Arizona Water Resources Management Act of 1977 (A Proposed Water Resources Code or Statute), University of Arizona College of Law, 1977, 116 pp
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
31
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
area31." In order to achieve the management goals, five management periods were established, between 1980 and 2025. For each management period, the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources must establish conservation requirements for all persons withdrawing, distributing or receiving groundwater designed to achieve reductions in withdrawals of groundwater. Industrial users (including mines, golf courses, schools, parks, dairies and feedlots) are required to use the latest available conservation method consistent with reasonable economic return. All industrial users are subject to general conservation requirements that include avoiding single-pass cooling unless the water is reused, reuse or recycle water if possible, use low-flow plumbing fixtures as required by state law and use low water use landscaping. In addition, specific water conservation requirements apply to certain types of industrial users. Cities, towns, private water companies, and irrigation districts that deliver water for nonirrigation (non-agricultural) purposes are subject to gallon per capita water per day conservation requirements. However alternative conservation programs that require specified conservation practices have also been developed to meet this requirement. Agricultural water use is subject to a "water duty", also established by the Director. Similar to the municipal users, alternative conservation programs are available to agricultural users that provide management flexibility. With each successive management period, the conservation requirements become progressively more stringent, within reason. b) Groundwater Rights The Groundwater Management Act also established a system of groundwater rights. Grandfathered Rights were established for existing groundwater users. An Irrigation Grandfathered Right allows for the irrigation of commercial farmland. Each Irrigation Grandfathered Right is assigned a maximum annual water duty allotment. The irrigation water duty is "...the quantity of water reasonably required to irrigate the crops historically grown in a farm unit including lined ditches, pump-back systems, land leveling, and efficient application practices...". The term "crops historically grown" was interpreted to mean the crops grown on actively irrigated farmland in the five years preceding the Code (1975 1979). Irrigation Grandfathered Rights are appurtenant to the land and cannot be severed or sold separately. Additional Grandfathered Rights established under the Code are Type I Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights and Type II Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights. A Type I NonIrrigation Grandfathered Right is established through the retirement of legally irrigated farmland and allows for withdrawals up to three acre-feet per acre. These rights are appurtenant to the retired irrigated land on which they are based and must be sold with the land. Type II Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights are not appurtenant to the land and can be sold independent of the land. Type II Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights are based on historic non-irrigation withdrawals prior to 1979. The Groundwater Management Act also identifies groundwater withdrawal permits for new non-irrigation uses: Dewatering Permits, Mineral Extraction and Metallurgical
31
1980 Groundwater Management Code, Title 45 Arizona Revised Statutes, Sections 401 through 636
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
32
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Processing Permits, General Industrial Use Permits, Poor Quality Groundwater Permits, Emergency Dewatering or Electrical Energy Generation Permits, and Drainage Water Withdrawal Permits. Each permit is issued for specific uses and for a specified duration. Water deliveries to domestic customers are permitted under a Service Area Right. A service area is the area that contains an operating distribution system for delivery of nonirrigation water. Under the management plans, large municipal providers (a city, town, private water company, or irrigation district delivering water in excess of 250 acre-feet per year for non-irrigation uses) are subject to conservation requirements based on per capita water use reductions. Holders of service area rights have the right to withdraw as much groundwater from within their service area as needed to serve their customers, subject to conservation requirements in the management plans and the Assured Water Supply Rules, as applicable. Service Area Rights can only be expanded for cities, towns, and private water companies under certain conditions. c) Assured & Adequate Water Supply Provisions The Groundwater Management Act requires that all land that is subdivided for sale or lease comply with the assured or adequate water supply provisions depending on whether the subdivision is within or outside of an AMA. The Department of Water Resources in February 1995 adopted the Assured and Adequate Water Supply Rules. Outside of the Active Management Area, developers can apply for a Statement of Water Adequacy or are required to disclose any "inadequacy" of the supply to the initial lot buyer. Water providers outside of Active Management Areas may also choose to obtain a Designation of Water Adequacy in which case developers are not required to submit plans for their subdivision's water supply if the lots will be served by the designated water provider. More rigorous provisions for new subdivisions are contained in the Assured Water Supply Rules inside the Active Management Areas. The sale or lease of subdivided land in an Active Management Area is prohibited without demonstration of an assured water supply. An assured water supply determination is required to gain approval of a subdivision plat by local governments, and to obtain authorization to sell lots by the Department of Real Estate. In Active Management Areas, new subdivisions are required to have a Certificate of Assured Water Supply, unless a water provider with a Designation of Assured Water Supply can serve them. Both municipalities and private water companies must demonstrate the ability to provide sufficient water for existing and new development in order to be designated as having an assured water supply. Further, the use of such water must also be demonstrated to be consistent with the management plan and management goal of the AMA, and cannot be demonstrated on groundwater supplies. d) Groundwater Transportation Statutes governing the transportation of groundwater within and between basins are designed to protect hydrologically distinct sources of groundwater supplies and the economies in rural areas by ensuring the groundwater is not depleted in one groundwater basin to benefit another. In general, groundwater cannot be transported between groundwater basins or from a groundwater basin into an Active Management Area except for specific transfers specified in statute. A.R.S. 45-551. Under current statute, groundwater can legally be redistributed within a subbasin, or within a basin that has not been divided into sub-basins, without payment of damages (A.R.S. 45-541 and A.R.S. 45-544). Groundwater may also be transported between sub-basins in the same basin, subject to payment of damages. A.R.S. 45-542 et seq.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 33
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Therefore, within an Active Management Area, groundwater withdrawn and used within the service area of a city, town, private water company or irrigation district may be transported within a sub-basin subject to the requirements for location of use on that Grandfathered Right or withdrawal permit. Transportation of groundwater of up to three acre-feet per acre across sub-basins or away from the Active Management Area is allowed for Irrigation Grandfathered Rights and Type I Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights (with some limitations), for use on acres appurtenant to that right. Transportation of groundwater across sub-basins or away from an Active Management Area for use within the same municipal service areas or irrigation district, or pursuant to a Type 2 NonIrrigation Grandfathered Right, a groundwater withdrawal permit or from an exempt well is allowed subject to payment of damages. As with many portions of the statutes, the section pertaining to groundwater transportation includes exceptions and allowances for unique circumstances. Some allowance for transportation of groundwater from outside of an Active Management Area is included for cities that purchased irrigated farmland prior to 1988. e) Water Augmentation and Recharge Water augmentation activities have resulted in the underground storage (recharge) of large volumes of Central Arizona Project water and effluent in the Phoenix, Tucson, Pinal and Prescott Active Management Areas. The goals of the recharge program are to encourage the use of renewable water supplies, allow for flexible storage of supplies not currently needed, and to preserve groundwater supplies. Recharging renewable water supplies that would otherwise be unused provides a supply during periods of extended drought and may help meet water management objectives such as replenishing areas that have been over-pumped. Another program goal is to allow for the efficient and costeffective management of water supplies by allowing the use of underground storage facilities for filtration and distribution of surface water rather than constructing surface water treatment plants and pipeline distribution systems. F. Effluent
Effluent, or treated wastewater, can be treated to a quality that can be used for purposes such as agricultural irrigation, turf grass watering, industrial cooling, or maintenance of riparian areas. Effluent has the potential to replace a potable water supply when potable water quality is not necessary for the use. Effluent can also be recharged to groundwater aquifers for future withdrawal and use or can be left in place to help replenish an aquifer or stabilize groundwater declines. Effluent is becoming an increasingly important water supply in both urban and rural areas of the state and can be of significant importance as a drought mitigation strategy. In the Active Management Areas the management plans contain a number of effluent use incentives. For example, effluent is not included in the calculation of the municipal gallon per capita per day conservation requirement and turf-related facilities can use more water for irrigation if effluent is part of the supply. If 100% effluent is used by a rightholder, then the regulatory provisions of the Groundwater Management Act do not
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 34
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
apply at all since regardless of its original source, effluent is legally a separate type of water. Outside of Active Management Areas, particularly in communities with water supply concerns, effluent is being utilized to meet non-potable water demands. Other communities are recharging effluent for the express purpose of aquifer replenishment.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
35
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 4 Workgroup Reports
To develop the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, the Governor's Drought Task Force requested the assistance of climate and water supply experts to develop triggers for identifying the inset of drought conditions, creating a Monitoring Committee. Additionally, Impact Assessment Workgroups were identified to assess the impacts of drought, identify regional vulnerabilities, identify potential mitigation and response options, and identify adaptation strategies to reduce drought impacts within the major water using sectors. The Impact Assessment Workgroups created by the Governor's Drought Task Force include the following: 1. Commerce, Recreation and Tourism; 2. Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock, and Wildlife; 3. Irrigated Agriculture; 4. Municipal and Industrial; and 5. Tribal The Monitoring Committee and Impact Assessment Workgroups are an integral component in the development of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, as these groups have included and will continue to include input from the public and will be the primary focus point for public involvement and input throughout the development of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan. Members of the Monitoring Committee and the Impact Assessment Workgroups include members of the Governor's Drought Task Force, individuals with a wide range of expertise and experience within the sector. The workgroups were cochaired by Arizona Department of Water Resources staff and external representatives of the sectors. A. Monitoring Committee The Monitoring Committee provided guidance in the development of a comprehensive monitoring network and will be the core of the ongoing effort to monitor and assess drought conditions in the state forming the basis of the drought adaptation and response activities. The objective of this Committee was to develop a drought monitoring system that provides detailed assessment data for decision makers in key government and economic areas impacted by drought. A key outcome of this effort is that Arizona will have a web based Drought Monitor report that contains a climate assessment, weather outlook, stream flow/runoff forecast (Jan-May), reservoir storage assessment and identification of drought decision triggers. The approach that has been developed for the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan is modeled after an approach developed by Georgia Tech University; using data compiled for specific indicators within each Climate Division compared against historic data and averaging the datasets to come up with a value that is then compared to trigger levels that have been developed for Arizona. Additionally, information derived from observations at the local level will be used to corroborate the compiled datasets. For example, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service field offices will be preparing quarterly reports on conditions in each portion of the state. The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, the US Department of Agriculture Farm Services, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department will be asked to collaborate on similar reports on a regular schedule.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
36
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
The drought indices, monitoring techniques and trigger points will be further refined in the future to respond to the varied landscape types in Arizona's primary physiographic regions (basin and range, Mogollon Rim, Colorado plateau) and the influence of local and regional elevation-induced weather and climate patterns. This process will be amended over time as improvements are made and additional information becomes available. The complete report developed by the Monitoring Technical Committee is contained in Appendix VI. B. Commerce, Recreation and Tourism Workgroup The Commerce, Recreation and Tourism Workgroup focused primarily upon the identification and evaluation of significant economic impacts associated with drought and the development of mitigation strategies to address these negative impacts. Key stakeholder groups include local, regional and state economic development professionals, land and resource professionals within Arizona State government, economists within academia, Federal land and resource program managers, and elected officials. The complete report developed by the Commerce, Recreation and Tourism Workgroup is contained in Appendix VII. Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife Workgroup The Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife Workgroup focused on ecosystem health and those who depend on healthy ecosystems to function. The workgroups objectives included: (1) Identify the information and resources necessary to develop a statewide, comprehensive monitoring and assessment program to identify the onset of drought and its impacts on wildlife, livestock, and ecosystems in the State of Arizona; (2) Identify existing and alternative emergency response options that can be used to mitigate the impacts of drought on wildlife, livestock, and ecosystems in the State of Arizona; and (3) Develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to minimize to the extent possible the impacts of drought on wildlife, livestock, and ecosystems in the State of Arizona. The complete report developed by the Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife Workgroup is contained in Appendix VIII. D. Irrigated Agricultural Workgroup The Irrigated Agricultural Workgroup focused on Arizona's irrigated agriculture sector, including individual irrigators and irrigation districts, dairies, and feedlots. Key stakeholders include individual farm operators, irrigation districts, and affiliated organizations. The objective of the Irrigated Agriculture workgroup is to assess the vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts of drought on the sector and to develop response, mitigation, and adaptation strategies to sustain the long-term economic viability of the State's irrigated agriculture. The complete report developed by the Irrigated Agriculture Workgroup is contained in Appendix IX. E. Municipal & Industrial Workgroup The Municipal & Industrial Workgroup focused primarily on rural area municipal and private potable water providers. Key stakeholder groups include water providers, jurisdictions, rural watershed partnerships, and industry associations.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.

Full Text

Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan
BACKGROUND & IMPACT ASSESSMENT SECTION
Governor's Drought Task Force
Governor Janet Napolitano
October 8, 2004
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan BACKGROUND SECTION I. Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................i Chapter 1 - Introduction..........................................................................1 Executive Order........................................................................1 Approach/Objectives ............................................................... 2 Drought Definitions........................................................... ......... 3 Evaluating Drought in Multiple Sectors and Locations ........................... 4 Chapter 2 Background .........................................................................5 Arizona Climate Summary............................................................5 Defining Drought...................................................................... 7 Economic and Environmental Sectors Impacted by Drought..................... 8 Impact To Arizona Forests And Wildland Fire.....................................10 Potential Impact of Simultaneous Drought Episodes on the Salt and Colorado River Systems................................................11 Planning and Institutional Sensitivities to Long-Term Drought Planning......... 12 Jurisdictional and Institutional Issues................................................. 13 Chapter 3 Overview of Water Supplies in Arizona.......................................15 Colorado River........................................................................ 15 Availability of Colorado River Supplies............................................ 20 Central Arizona Project............................................................... 21 Surface Water Other than Colorado River.........................................24 Groundwater...........................................................................27 Effluent..................................................................................34 Chapter 4 Workgroup and Committee Reports..............................................35 Appendices I Governor's Executive Order II 2003 Potable Water Plan & 2004 Potable Water Plan III Drought Task Force Membership IV Definitions/Acronyms V Description of Priorities for Colorado River Water and Contractors by Priority Order VI Workgroup Reports Monitoring Committee VII Workgroup Reports Commerce, Recreation & Tourism VIII Workgroup Reports Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife IX Workgroup Report Irrigated Agriculture X Workgroup Report Municipal & Industrial XI White Paper Tribal Impacts XII Other Cross-Sector Impacts
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Executive Summary
Arizona has been affected by drought conditions during most of the last decade. It is not known at this time whether the drought conditions will abate in the short term, or whether this is a multi-decade drought sequence as has occurred in the past. However, it is absolutely clear that this is not the last drought that will affect the state. The economic and environmental impacts of drought continue to increase as the population of the state increases. Recent conditions on the Colorado River have initiated critical discussion that some had thought were long-range issues, with water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell at the lowest level since the dams were built. Although Arizona has a reliable water supply by comparison to several of its neighboring states, drought conditions in the rural parts of Arizona have had devastating personal and economic impacts. In addition, due to the Central Arizona Project's low priority on the Colorado River system, there is cause for some concern about the ability of the existing system to respond to long-term drought that affects both the Colorado and the Salt-Verde system. Arizona has made huge investments in importing and storing water supplies for the major metropolitan areas, and those investments have significantly buffered the state from impacts during the current drought. However, there is a need for further preparedness in case conditions worsen. On March 20, 2003 Governor Janet Napolitano issued Executive Order 2003-12 and established the Governor's Drought Task Force to address the drought issues facing all Arizonans further directing the Arizona Department of Water Resources to provide leadership in this effort. The goal of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan is to: 1. Identify the impacts of drought to the various sectors of water uses; 2. Define the sources of drought vulnerability for water use sectors and outline monitoring programs to alert water users and resource managers of the onset and severity of drought events; and 3. Prepare drought response options and drought mitigation strategies to reduce the impact of drought to water users in Arizona. To achieve these goals, State leaders have developed a "plan" that will be reviewed annually and if necessary updated to provide the most up to date information and technology to not only prepare for drought but to provide the tools necessary that can be implemented to reduce the impacts from drought. The information in the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan will assist State leaders, in concert with water users, planners, and resource managers, prepare for and respond to current and future drought conditions in Arizona. The Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan consists of two components: 1. Background and Impact Assessment defines drought in Arizona, provides an historical context of drought, and catalogues the historical impacts and sources of drought vulnerability of water use sectors and water supplies, and 2. Operational Drought Plan identifies regional vulnerability to drought impacts, identifies drought response options, defines drought mitigation strategies, outlines monitoring activities and programs to alert water users and
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 i
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
resource managers of the onset of drought, and provides an implementation plan to respond to drought events. The intent of this portion of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan - Background and Impact Assessment is to provide information necessary to understand the dynamic climate conditions that effect Arizona and what role drought has in that dynamic. Further, Arizona has a complex set of water laws that influence water planning in this state. A description of these laws is provided herein. Finally, the Task Force was focused on maximizing to every extent possible, stakeholder input and involvement. As such, a committee was created to develop a comprehensive monitoring network and drought trigger levels to provide early warning for the citizens of this state. Additionally impact assessment workgroups were establish for the following sectors to identify impacts and vulnerabilities and to identify potential mitigation and response options. The culmination of these efforts are contained in the Workgroup Reports that can be found in the Appendices of this document that provide extensive insight into drought and its impacts.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
ii
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Arizona has been affected by drought conditions for six out of the last seven years, and virtually all parts of the state have a cumulative water supply deficit. Concern regarding the impacts of drought reached a peak in 2002, which was one of the driest years in the last century. Until recently, the major urban areas of Arizona, Phoenix and Tucson, were thought to be insulated from the impacts of drought because of past federal and state investments in water supply sources such as the Salt River Project and the Central Arizona Project. In addition, Arizona has made major investments in managing the groundwater supplies in the Active Management Areas of the state (Phoenix, Tucson, Pinal, Prescott and Santa Cruz, see Figure 1, below). However, recent serious drought conditions and new information about drought patterns in the last 1000 years based on tree-ring analysis, have raised awareness of the need for a comprehensive state drought plan and ways to address the possibility of long-term, sustained drought conditions. The most urgent need is in the growing communities in the rural parts of the state, where alternative water supplies are generally very limited and the economy is strongly affected by drought (particularly grazing, recreation, and forestry-related sectors). Some of the most significant effects of the drought are environmental--multiple aquatic species are at risk, and wildfires and bark beetles are decimating woodlands and forests of Arizona. The environmental impacts of drought are generally more difficult to manage than the societal impacts. Drought is cumulative, and does not affect all economic sectors in the same ways. This plan is designed to respond to the differences in water supply availability and drought vulnerability for each sector and geographic area. The plan contains a separate section called the "Operational Drought Plan", which addresses the recommended adaptation, mitigation and response activities.
Figure 1: Active Management Areas within Arizona
A.
Executive Order
Governor Janet Napolitano established the Governor's Drought Task Force by executive order on March 20, 2003 (see Appendix I, Executive Order 2003-12). Drought response activities in Arizona were previously handled within the Department of Emergency Management, but recognizing the differences between drought and other types of emergencies and the need for proactive drought planning, the Governor directed the Department of Water Resources to provide leadership in this effort. The Executive Order required the development of three major products: a short-term drought plan for the summer of 2003 that was adopted on July 10, 2003 (see Appendix II, Potable Water Plan); a long-term drought mitigation and coordination plan to address various specified areas of concern (represented by this document); and development and
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 1
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
implementation of a statewide water conservation strategy, which will be submitted to the Governor separately but at the same time as this Plan. The Drought Task Force itself is comprised of state agencies and elected officials (see Appendix III, Drought Task Force Membership). However, broad public and stakeholder participation has been encouraged. Workgroups have been established to actively solicit input from the municipal and industrial sectors, irrigated agriculture, environmental and resource management interests, tribal governments, and the commerce, recreation and tourism sector. In addition, public and private sector volunteers who provided valuable expertise directly supported the planning process.1 Additionally, over 1,000 people have been regularly notified of the Task Force's activities and meetings as well a series of seven public workshops prior to release of this draft plan. Furthermore, public input will continue to be encouraged as the plan is implemented. The Task Force has also been aided by experts from the National Drought Mitigation Center and supported financially by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. B. Approach/Objectives of the Drought Plan
The adopted mission statement for the Governor's Drought Task Force is to develop a sustainable drought planning process for Arizona that includes: Timely and reliable monitoring of drought and water supply conditions in the state and an assessment of potential impacts An assessment of the vulnerability of key sectors, regions, and population groups in the state and potential actions to mitigate those impacts Assisting stakeholders in preparing for and responding to drought impacts, including development of a statewide water conservation strategy and public awareness program. The focus on a sustainable drought planning process has been a key objective from the beginning of this effort. Developing a plan that quickly becomes obsolete and does not adapt to changing conditions will not make a contribution to the long-term welfare of the state, while an adaptive program that focuses on building institutional and stakeholder relationships and an improved information base over time should prove more robust in responding effectively to changing conditions. The Drought Task Force has developed a planning process that encourages the use of the latest scientific information, particularly in enhancing the use of climate forecasts and monitoring data at the regional scale to enhance the utility of drought-related information for decision-makers. In addition to the strong science focus, the process has been designed to maximize stakeholder input, especially in monitoring conditions locally across the state and helping to shape the communication and response processes. It is hoped that providing longer-term climate projections, even those that are relatively uncertain, can provide valuable information about the possible range and intensity of drought. Such projections allow a broader assessment of potential drought impacts and identification of early steps to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacity.
1 Among the entities that have donated staff time to drafting this document are the Salt River Project, the University of Arizona, the Central Arizona Project, the Bureau of Reclamation, the cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale, the Agri-Business Council, Project WET, and numerous private firms: Arizona-American Water Company, HDR Engineers, Hargis and Associates, and Malcolm Pirnie.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
2
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
This effort has also focused on defining the conditions that create vulnerability to drought in each sector and identifying potential adaptive responses. This is intended to increase the effectiveness of drought planning and reduce long-term costs related to emergencies. Capacity building is an essential component of the proposed process. Implementation is focused at the local level, and will encourage local responses to local conditions and concerns. In this way, the plan recognizes the strengths inherent in local knowledge about conditions, practices, and values, while providing a comprehensive statewide support structure to help communities and impacted sectors better prepare for drought in the future. C. Drought Definitions
For purposes of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan a definition of drought was developed to provide the basis needed to guide the development of appropriate triggers and monitoring activities. Drought, in this context is defined as a sustained, natural reduction in precipitation that results in negative impacts to the environment and human activities. Although drought is a natural, recurring feature of climate, occurring in high as well as low rainfall areas, drought is more than just a moisture deficit. Beyond the definition of drought is the magnitude of the impacts on the environment and to human activities. The extent of drought impacts is dependent on multiple physical and social factors, including several climate variables, water use patterns and vulnerability. Drought affects various sectors of society in different ways, and can be defined in many ways- thus perception is an important element in qualitatively gauging the impact of drought. The risk associated with drought for any region is a product of both the region's exposure to the event (i.e. probability of occurrence at various severity levels) and the vulnerability of society (and the environment) to the event. Subsequent droughts in the same region will have different effects, even if they are identical in intensity and spatial characteristics, because societal (and ecological) characteristics will have changed (National Drought Mitigation Center). Following are other key definitions that will be used in the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan. For monitoring purposes the following definitions will be used. Indicators are variables to describe drought conditions (examples - precipitation, stream flow, groundwater, reservoir levels, soil moisture, etc.). The indicators have been identified for each Climate Division, identified in the following section and will allow the monitoring committee to assess data against historic data to determine if a trigger has been tripped. Triggers are specific values of each indicator that initiate and terminate each drought status level, and subsequent suggested management responses. Additionally, drought will be described using timescale that relate to the observed climatic impacts. Short-term Drought is measured by the departure of precipitation or another drought indicator from average conditions on a time-scale from one to several months. Long-term Drought is measured when sustained precipitation deficits over time periods of one to several years affect surface and subsurface water supplies. After each stage of drought has been identified, certain actions will need to be initiated. The Governor's Drought Task Force has focused on water users taking necessary actions to respond to drought or in reducing the impacts that may occur at each stage. Impacts are
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 3
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
the visible results of the effects of drought. Impacts vary across the state based on climatic and social activities and are the economic, social, and environmental effects that occur, either directly or indirectly, as a result of drought. Each workgroup has identified individual impacts for each water-using sector within the state. Vulnerability refers to the level of risk of an area, water supply, or water user for suffering negative consequences as a result of the temporary or permanent reduction in a water supply as a direct result of drought. Mitigation is pre-drought actions or programs that reduce risk and impacts and enhance recovery. Response is an action implemented as a result of drought that is shortterm and is aimed at reducing impacts and enhancing recovery. More general definitions are contained in Appendix IV of this document. D. Evaluating Drought in Multiple Sectors and Locations
The Arizona Drought Plan acknowledges that drought affects multiple sectors in the same location differently, and establishes trigger mechanisms that are related to the vulnerability of each region rather than establishing statewide drought stages. This approach is imperative in a state that is so dependent on imported surface water supplies from the Colorado, with reservoirs that hold a multi-year water supply, and large groundwater reserves. In the portions of the state that do not have these long-term, generally reliable water supplies, sectors such as grazing and recreation are likely to be in serious drought status more commonly than the major urban areas. The triggers also acknowledge and work in concert with the relatively complex institutional water management context. The drought indices, monitoring techniques and trigger points will continue to be further refined in the future to respond to the varied landscape types in Arizona's primary physiographic regions (basin and range, Mogollon Rim, Colorado plateau) and the influence of local and regional elevation-induced weather and climate patterns. The Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis and modified as improvements are made in the process.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
4
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 2 - Background
A coordinated response to drought requires an understanding of the local and regional economic and environmental sectors that are vulnerable to drought. An understanding of drought and the associated impacts can guide drought response planning and drought mitigation plans. The purpose of this chapter is to: Summarize the Arizona's climate and historical context of drought events in Arizona; Summarize Arizona's definition of drought used for long-term drought planning; Identify sectors of Arizona's economy and environment impacted by drought and the potential impacts of drought events to each sector with additional emphasis on drought impacts to forests and the relationship with wild land fire; Define potential impacts of simultaneous drought events on the Colorado River system and the Salt River system; Identify planning and institutional sensitivities in long-term drought planning in Arizona; and Summarize jurisdictional and institutional issues related to drought planning. A. Arizona Climate Summary
Arizona's climate is considered to be arid under "normal" conditions, and much of the state is classified as desert. As is typical of most of the world's desert regions, Arizona's climate is strongly influenced by subtropical atmospheric circulation. However, the interplay of subtropical high pressure features with mid-latitude circulation, such as the polar and subtropical jet streams during the winter, and with the North American monsoon circulation during summer, determines the season-to-season (intraseasonal) and year-to-year (interannual) variations in precipitation, sunshine, and temperature. Precipitation in Arizona is highly seasonal, with peaks during the winter (November-April) and summer (July-September). The summer precipitation peak is most pronounced in southeastern Arizona, and generally becomes more pronounced as one proceeds from west to east across the state. Winter precipitation is associated with widespread storms, one to several days in duration, which provide rains at lower elevations and snowfall at higher elevations. Winter precipitation is particularly important to Arizona water supply, as cooler winter temperatures attenuate evaporation in the soil and surface water bodies, and allow snowpack to persist until the spring. In contrast, summer precipitation is associated with convective thunderstorm activity accompanying the North American monsoon circulation; summer precipitation is typically high intensity, short duration, and spatially heterogeneous. Because summer precipitation is high intensity and is accompanied by maximum annual temperatures and high rates of evapotranspiration, recharge to the soil column and water supplies is limited during the summer. In addition to strong seasonality, Arizona precipitation, like that of most of the world's desert regions, is characterized by a high degree of year-to-year (interannual) variation. One of the key factors influencing interannual precipitation variations in Arizona, during winter in particular, is the El Niouthern Oscillation, a multi-season to multi-year variation in equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures and associated atmospheric circulation.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 5
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
El Niouthern Oscillation has varied considerably in frequency, intensity, and interval between El Nind La Nihase over the historical and paleoclimate record. When El Niouthern Oscillation is in its El Nihase, Arizona frequently receives above average winter precipitation, due to an enhanced subtropical jet stream and increased low-latitude moisture available to storms tracking across the Southwest. However, the El Niet Arizona winter connection is quite variable, and although most of the wettest Arizona winters have occurred during the El Nihase, there have been a considerable number of dry Arizona El Niinters. When El Niouthern Oscillation is in its La Nihase, Arizona is most frequently dry, and is reliably not wet, due to a more northern storm track and increased influence of subtropical high pressure. During, the past two decades, several La Nipisodes (e.g., 1989-90, 1995-96, 1998-2001) have initiated Arizona droughts. Paleoclimate research indicates a strong connection between the historical frequency and intensity of the La Nihase and multi-year drought in the Southwest. The noted 1950's drought, which had exceedingly severe effects on New Mexico and the Southern Plains states (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Arizona), was embedded during a longer-term 1940s-1970s dry period in Arizona, associated with more frequent La Niand fewer and lower magnitude El Ni A so-called step change in Pacific Basin climate in 197677 heralded two decades of wet conditions in the Southwest, associated with more frequent and higher magnitude El Ni Multi-decade time scale changes in the climate of both the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins are implicated in severe sustained drought in Arizona. In the Pacific Ocean, a feature called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been associated with the record of winter (November-March) precipitation variations in the western United States. The major multi-year Arizona droughts of the past 110 years, late 1800s-early 1900s, 1950s, 1996-present, occurred during negative phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Sea surface temperatures and western U.S. drought patterns since 1999 indicate the possibility that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation might have shifted to a phase favoring dry conditions in Arizona for the next ~20 years. Research indicates that, across Arizona, 1999-2003 is one of the driest 5-year periods of winter precipitation in the instrumental climate record. Concern about an episode of Pacific Decadal Oscillation-influenced prolonged drought in Arizona is heightened by the fact that the long-term predictability of winter precipitation in the Southwest is diminished during dry Southwest Pacific Decadal Oscillation phases. The multi-decadal behavior of the Atlantic Ocean has also been associated with multidecade dry conditions in the Southwest. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in conjunction with Pacific Ocean climate patterns, such as El Niouthern Oscillation, appears to produce atmospheric circulation patterns conducive to enhanced La Nina-like conditions in the Southwest. The paleoclimate record of drought shows that the late 1500s is probably the drought of record in Arizona for the last 1000 years. This drought has been tied to record low flows on the Colorado River, native population collapse due to disease in Mexico, as well as widespread drought conditions across North America. Reconstructions of Arizona climate division winter (November-April) precipitation show extensive dry periods in some or all parts of Arizona during virtually every century in the last 1000 years, with notable multiArizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 6
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
year droughts in the mid-1200s, late 1500s, mid-to-late 1600s, mid-1700s, late 1800s, early 1900s, and mid-20th century. Most of the aforementioned winter dry periods were more severe and many more sustained than the Arizona drought of the last 5-8 years. B. Defining Drought
Drought has been described as an "insidious natural disaster." A drought is a climatic event that can extend for single season or last for several years. Typically, the onset and cessation of drought is difficult to gauge until after the episode. Droughts are difficult to predict and their level of intensity is often related to pre-existing conditions. For example, drought conditions following a wet season may not be as severe as a similar magnitude drought that follows a normal or subnormal run-off year. A long-term drought can have devastating impacts to nearly all sectors of a local or regional economy and environment. For example, in Texas, the 1996 drought caused $1.9 billion in losses to farmers and cattle-growers and removed $5 billion from the Texas economy. A drought may impact individual sectors of the economy or environment differently, due to differences in vulnerability and location. The definition of the drought for the operational plan will consider differences in drought impacts by sector, degree of vulnerability, and location. The conceptual definition of drought is as follows: "Drought is a sustained natural reduction in precipitation that results in negative impacts to the environment and human activities. The National Drought Mitigation Center defines four basic types of drought: 1) Meteorological or climatological; 2) Agricultural; 3) Hydrological, and 4) Socioeconomic. Meteorological or climatological drought is defined in terms of the magnitude of a precipitation shortfall and the duration of this shortfall event. Agricultural drought links the various characteristics of meteorological drought to agricultural impacts, focusing on precipitation shortages, differences between actual and potential evapotranspiration, and soil moisture deficit. Hydrological droughts are characterized by periods of precipitation shortfall that result in an effect on surface or subsurface water supply, rather than direct impacts of precipitation shortfalls. Hydrological droughts are typically out of phase or lag the occurrence of meteorological and agricultural drought. Where irrigation is necessary for agriculture, agricultural drought is really determined by hydrological drought. Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of some economic good with elements of meteorological, agricultural, and hydrological drought."
In Arizona, drought is more than just a moisture deficit. It is the result of a complex interplay between water uses, both cultural and natural uses, and natural precipitation that operates on varying time and spatial levels. The extent of drought reflects local and regional geography, climate variables, water use patterns, water supply vulnerability, and cultural preferences. The extent of the impact to a particular sector and/or region is
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 7
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
an important element in qualitatively gauging the impact of drought. Therefore, local perceptions are a fundamental component of defining the level of drought impact. C. Economic and Environmental Sectors Impacted by Drought
Drought impacts broad areas of Arizona's economy and environment. Through research, investigation, and public involvement, the Governor's Drought Task Force identified the following sectors of Arizona's economy and environment that are vulnerable to impacts from drought events: Irrigated Agriculture Municipal and Industrial Water Users Energy Production Public Health Wildlife Environmental Health and Watershed Management Livestock Commerce and Recreation Tourism
The economic and environmental sectors and potential impacts are identified in Table 1. TABLE 1. Economic and Environmental Sectors and Potential Drought Impacts Sector Potential Drought Impacts Irrigated Agriculture Reduction in soil moisture, Reduced crop quality, Reduced crop yields, Increased pest outbreaks, Increased water supply costs, Increased management applications (fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides), Municipal and Industrial Increased water demands due reduction to precipitation, Water Users Reduced water supplies (groundwater and surface water), Economic impacts from reduced water sales or production, Energy Production Reduced hydroelectric production, Increased power demands due to increased temperatures and agricultural uses, Reduction in water supply available for cooling water, Public Health Population stress, Potential reduction in water quality, Increased potential of disease transmission, Environmental Health Increased frequency and severity of forest fires, and Watershed Pest outbreaks (e.g. Bark beetles), Management Reduction in watershed production, Reduction in habitat quality and forage production, Potential for increased erosion/arroyo formation, Livestock and Wildlife Reduced water supply, Increased mortality,
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 8
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Commerce and Recreation
Tourism
Reduced recruitment, Increased supplemental feed costs, Increased predation, Reductions in herd size, Increased potential for disease outbreaks, Increased potential for human-wildlife contact Reduced sales and use of outdoor recreation equipment, Reduction in rural recreation economy, Decreased water related recreation, Reduction in in-migration of new businesses, Potential increased migration from rural areas to urban areas, including international migration, Reduced visitations to parks, Decreased number of winter visitors, Decrease in conventions and hospitality events.
Each sector has differing vulnerabilities to the impacts of drought. Within each sector, vulnerability to drought may vary regionally. A sector's vulnerability to drought is generally a function of the reliability of the available water supply, availability of replacement or backup water supplies, and the degree of impact that occurs from a reduction in supply. For example, an irrigated farm may experience different impacts than a neighboring ranch operation experiencing the same drought. The farm may have the option of drilling a well to replace some or all of the reduced supply to save a portion of the crop. The ranch may not have the option of developing groundwater and may have to reduce the herd size or sell off the stock entirely. Furthermore, different types of drought (e.g. meteorological, agricultural, hydrologic, and socioeconomic) can trigger different impact to the sectors at different times. For example, municipal water providers may experience increased water demands during a meteorological drought because lack of precipitation causes customers to water their lawns more frequently. If a drought deepens, the same water provider may experience a hydrologic drought if a reduction in water supply (e.g. reduced reservoir storage) occurs. Finally, in an extended drought, the water provider may endure a socioeconomic drought, if the revenue of the entity is reduced due to decreased water deliveries or sales. The paleoclimatic history of Arizona records several important drought events and related impacts. Perhaps the most dramatic is the potential association of extended drought events in the mid-1200's and 1400's with the abandonment of settlements across the southwest. In recent memory, the drought of the 1950's and early 1960's had far reaching impacts to Arizona's economy and environment. Rural surface water supplies were reduced due to the drought. In response, new groundwater resources were rapidly developed, particularly for mining and municipal uses in rural Arizona. The reduction of water supplies on the Salt and Verde Rivers caused additional groundwater development in central Arizona. The drought had political impacts as well. The drought illustrated the vulnerability of surface water supplies in Central Arizona. As a result, the drought galvanized political support for development of the Central Arizona Project.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
9
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
D.
Impact To Arizona Forests And Wildland Fire
The major factors affecting fire frequency, size, and intensity include the following: the nature and dynamics of the ecosystem (including history of past fires), land management practices, sources of ignition, and climate and weather (including drought). These factors have interacted in complex ways during the last two centuries to produce the conditions that currently bear on Arizona's landscape and fire ecology. The story of drought's multiple roles in shaping Arizona's landscape and fire ecology requires a brief examination of some of the aforementioned factors and how they have varied over time. A highly simplified history of the effects of land management on fire ecology, based on a combination of tree-ring and instrumental fire history records, shows that Arizona low- and mid-elevation forests (~6000-8000 feet) were subject to relatively frequent low intensity surface fires prior to European settlement2. Fires were more frequent in low elevation forests and fire frequency decreased as moist conditions increased with elevation. With the introduction of logging, many large stem trees were removed from Arizona forests (in particular, Ponderosa pine forests). Historic livestock grazing and fire suppression promoted the development of dense stands of younger, thinstemmed trees, commonly known as "dog hair thickets." This condition now threatens Arizona forests, especially the remaining large trees, through competition, possibly easier spread of mortality through disease and insect vectors, and by fueling increasingly extensive high intensity crown fires3. Historical sources of fire ignition have typically included natural ignitions from lightning and fires set by Native Americans before European settlement. In recent years, human ignitions have increased, especially during the pre-monsoon season, due in part to population increases, increased use of forests by recreationalists, runaway campfires set by migrants, and arson. In addition to the effects of the aforementioned land management practices on forest stand density, fire spread is now enhanced by the introduction of invasive species, such as some exotic grasses. Moreover, the development of homes in the wildland-urban interface, as well as in formerly isolated forested rural locations, increases the vulnerability of Arizonans to fire. Drought serves as a catalyst for fire in Arizona. The susceptibility of Arizona grasslands and forests to fire is mediated, in part, by individual dry years and by persistent drought. Tree-ring studies show that the largest pre-1900 fire years were all characterized by significantly below average Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) values4. In the modern period, this relationship still holds true. However, regional-scale fire events often occurred a year or two after a wet year or years. This wet/dry cycle indicates that wet seasons and years are important in developing sufficient fine fuels (understory vegetation) to generate a regional fire event5. Some of the largest fires in pre-historic and recent
Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan, 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United States since AD 1700. In C. D. Allen, editor, Fire effects in southwestern forests, Proceedings of the Second La Mesa Fire Symposium, March 29-31, 1994, Los Alamos, New Mexico. U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. 216 pp. 3 Allen, Craig D., Melissa Savage, Donald A. Falk, Kieran F. Suckling, Thomas W. Swetnam, Todd Schulke, Peter B. Stacey, Penelope Morgan, Martos Hoffman, and Jon T. Klingel, 2002. Ecological Restoration Of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad Perspective. Ecological Applications, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 14181433. 4 Swetnam and Baisan, 1996 5 Swetnam and Baisan, 1996
2
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
10
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
records were synchronized by this combination of extreme multi-year shifts from moist to drought conditions. Thus, drought synchronizes regional-scale fire. Drought episodes can cause major changes to the age structure and species composition of forests. The 1950's drought and associated bark beetle outbreaks killed large numbers of trees in the ponderosa forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands of the Colorado Plateau, Mogollon Rim, and Sky Islands of southern Arizona. Many of these dead trees persist as logs and snags (standing dead trees) within these forests and woodlands today. An unusual wet spell occurred in the Southwest from approximately 1976-1993 (with some dry seasons and years during this period), and many tree seedlings, grasses and herbaceous plants established within Arizona forests and woodlands during this period6. This new plant growth probably resulted in increased competition among plants for water (and stress) during the ensuing drought. The new plant growth also provided additional fuels for rapid spread and high intensity of wildfire during the past decade. In summary, drought plays multiple roles in creating conditions that promote fire in Arizona. Persistent drought can stress trees, reduce resistance to insect outbreaks and pathogens, and over time cause directly and indirectly forest mortality and changes in the composition and structure of forests. Drought reduces fuel moisture, and persistent drought can substantially reduce the moisture of large, heavy dead and live fuels; thus drought serves as a catalyst to fire. Finally, the switch of climatic conditions from relatively moist to extremely dry (i.e., drought) over the course of several years results in the synchronization of regional-scale fire across the Southwest during drought years. E. Potential Impact of Simultaneous Drought Episodes on the Salt and Colorado River Systems
A major concern in drought planning is assessing the drought vulnerability for water providers. Central Arizona encompasses water providers in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties who serve approximately 4,000,000 or 80% of Arizona's population in 2000. Water providers in Maricopa County serve approximately 3,000,000 people. Central Arizona is unique in that it relies on the conjunctive management of two renewable water supply systems (the Central Arizona Project and the Salt River Project), as well as enormous amounts of groundwater in storage. Most water providers and water users in central Arizona rely on one or both of the renewable water supply sources as well as significant amounts of groundwater. A fundamental question in drought planning is what is the potential impact of a simultaneous drought on the Colorado River and Salt River system on water providers in central Arizona. The degree of impact from a simultaneous sustained drought on water providers in central Arizona is a complex issue. There have been overlapping drought events on the Colorado River and Salt River systems. However, the Salt River Project system is more vulnerable to drought impacts. The Salt River Project has a smaller drainage area (13,000 square miles) and smaller storage capacity (4,000,000 acre-feet) than the Colorado River system water delivered through the Central Arizona Project (242,000 square miles and over 60,000,000 acre-feet of storage). The history of water deliveries shows the difference in
6 Swetnam, T.W., and J. Betancourt, 1998. Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate 11:3128-3147.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
11
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
vulnerability between the two systems. There are extended periods, such as the present drought, and the 1950's drought when Salt River Project water deliveries have been reduced due to insufficient storage in the system reservoirs. In contrast, to date, there have been no instances of delivery curtailments on the Colorado River system due to insufficient water supply. However, if the current drought continues, there may shortage declarations on the Colorado River by 2007, which would impact Central Arizona Project water deliveries. The potential impact from a simultaneous sustained drought on both the Salt and Colorado River systems, assuming that drought was extensive and sustained enough to cause shortage declarations on the Colorado system, are estimated to include the following: Reduction in water available for irrigated agriculture o CAP delivers approximately 500,000 acre-feet for agricultural water uses, which could be curtailed, including Indian and non-Indian uses, o SRP would likely reduce deliveries to its agriculture customers, Potential Reduction in water available for SRP municipal customers, o Historically, CAP has delivered 800,000 acre-feet of water to SRP to protect SRP customers from shortage, Increase in groundwater pumping, o SRP would increase reliance on its well fields to make up reduced surface water available for its deliveries, o CAP in cooperation with the AWBA would recover water stored to protect CAP M&I customers from shortage, o Municipal water providers would also increase groundwater pumping to make up any shortages from SRP or CAP deliveries, It should be noted that the foregoing impacts, while significant, require both systems to be in a sustained drought at the same time for an extended period. It is unclear from the instrument record or paleoclimate record if such a sustained event would occur at times when reservoir levels were already at low levels. In addition, the availability of significant volumes of groundwater in storage in central Arizona, both as recharge credits and native groundwater could serve to mitigate the impacts of the reduced surface water supply. However, the development and delivery of new water supplies or recovery of stored credits would likely increase water costs during and after the drought event significantly. F. Planning and Institutional Sensitivities to Long-Term Drought Planning
As stated previously drought impacts vary by sector and region. The role of Arizona's state government in planning for drought events and assisting those impacted by drought may be limited by planning and institutional constraints. At the planning level, long-term planning is constrained by a lack of long-term data. The ability to define the appropriate thresholds and triggers for drought declaration and actions requires significant data at the local level. The current quality of available data may limit the ability to adequately forecast droughts or to predict impacts with sufficient advanced warning to prevent or mitigate the impacts. The drought plan will consider the monitoring and data gathering network necessary to provide adequate data for
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 12
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
planning. At present the type and density of instruments to measure key drought indicators is not sufficient to predict drought or the impacts that may result. The ultimate goal of the drought plan will be to develop mitigation plans to prevent drought events from producing impacts. Potential mitigation strategies require a change from the status quo and will cross over from technical analysis to political and institutional impacts. As such, the potential mitigation strategies will need to be developed through coordination with local jurisdictions and stakeholders. The coordinated effort would build consensus proposals that fit the local experience and need. As present, the current plan is constrained to conceptual level mitigation strategies. The potential mitigation strategies may require the development of: Alternative water supplies, Additional water storage, Different land management strategies, Increased conservation and drought awareness, State mandates for conservation and response, and Funding mechanisms to support drought planning and mitigation. Finally, the current role of the State in long-term drought planning is to provide the information and tools to assist local jurisdictions in responding to drought events. The plan does not contemplate change to the existing regulatory structure or authority. However, to develop mitigation strategies, a change from the status quo is necessary. Such changes to the existing regulatory structure could be considered in the future as mitigation strategies are developed. Future changes might include items such as extending the assured water rules to water providers outside of the Active Management Areas and imposing mandatory water conservation requirements. If these changes are contemplated, they would need to be developed through a stakeholder participation process to build a consensus proposal. G. Jurisdictional and Institutional Issues
As described above, climate, geology, and topography influence where and how water is used in Arizona. However, jurisdictional and institutional constraints also play an important role in the management of these supplies. Land ownership in Arizona is comprised of private, Tribal, Federal and State lands. Jurisdiction over how water and lands are managed is often outside of the State's authority, and inevitably left to the Courts to decide. Federal lands account for over 60 percent of Arizona, including tribal lands. The Arizona State Land Department also accounts for nearly nine million acres in Arizona, however, state land is not considered to be a public entity, rather it is land which has been set aside to be leased whereby the monies are be used to benefit public education in Arizona. These three agencies control approximately 20 percent (Forest Service), 16 percent (Bureau of Land Management), and 13percent (Arizona State Land Department) of all land in Arizona, respectively. Indian reservations also account for 27percent of lands in Arizona while the remaining 24 percent is split between individual/corporate owners (17%) and other public lands (7%)7. Thus, incorporating the Federal Government
7
(National Agricultural Statistics Service 2002)
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
13
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
and Tribal Government in planning is essential to the success of drought management in this state. Water laws have been developed to address specific issues that have arisen throughout Arizona's (and Western) history. The Federal government, based on a system of interstate compacts, international treaties, and Supreme Court Decisions, manages Colorado River supplies. Surface water law (other than the Colorado River) is based on historic diversions, giving the oldest water uses (regardless of what the water is used for) priority in times of shortage (Doctrine of Prior Appropriation: first in time, first in right). Groundwater is considered a public water supply but is only vigorously managed in central Arizona in the state's five Active Management Areas. Even under this management framework, historic groundwater uses were "grandfathered" in perpetuity. Outside of the Active Figure 2: Federal Lands in Arizona Management Areas, groundwater use is not managed except for requiring a permit to drill a well. This existing framework further limits addressing statewide water management.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
14
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 3 Overview of Water Supplies in Arizona
Although an arid state, Arizona has a diverse array of water resources. These water resources are composed primarily of surface water from rivers and streams, groundwater in underground aquifers, and effluent or reclaimed water. The availability of these resources is constrained by four main factors: 1. Physical availability of the resource Is there enough "wet" water to meet users needs 2. Water quality Is the water chemistry compatible with water users' needs 3. Water rights and institutional barriers Do water users have legal access to the resource ("paper" water) 4. Infrastructure Do water users have sufficient infrastructure necessary to efficiently use the water supplies. The distribution of Arizona's water resources across the state reflects the impact of local and regional precipitation patterns, geology, and geography. These factors generally divide the state into three water resource regions, each with unique water resource characteristics. The three regions are: the Colorado Plateau, the Mogollon Highlands, and the Basin and Range. The distribution of water resources in each region reflects these factors. The physical availability and water quality of water resources is discussed in later sections of the report. Superimposed on each region are water rights and institutional barriers that may limit the availability of water resources regionally or locally. These limitations may include prior appropriation of available water through water rights decrees or ongoing litigation through water rights adjudications, water use management practices and regulations, endangered species concerns, and environmental considerations. These factors and limitations are discussed more fully in the following section. In addition, local infrastructure constraints may further limit the ability of a community or individual user to make full use of a water supply. Discussion of individual water users' infrastructure constraints is beyond the scope of the current study. The description of the water rights and institutional barriers is discussed in detail in this section. A. Colorado River Water
The Colorado River runs approximately 1,400 miles from Colorado's Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez in Mexico. The Colorado River Basin drains approximately 242,000 square miles of land and supplies water to two countries (Mexico and the United States), seven western states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California), and numerous Indian Tribes. Water from the Colorado River is diverted for many uses including agricultural, potable water supplies for cities and towns, industrial, and environmental. Early in the 20thcentury it was recognized that as these competing demands increased, it was necessary to develop a structure that would provide a longterm secure water supply for its many users. The development of Colorado River water law includes a long and sometimes contentious history. This is described in the "Law of the River", which includes Congressional acts,
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 15
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
international treaties and Supreme Court decisions. For the most part Western Water Law recognizes users that developed water supplies from rivers through the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation "first in time, first in right." However, concerns emerged in the upper reaches of the Colorado River Basin as significant development occurred in California and when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation for rivers that crossed multiple States regardless of State boundaries in Wyoming v. Colorado, June 5, 1922, 259 U.S. 419. In southern California, agricultural development in the Imperial Valley began to rely more and more on the Colorado River. However, the River was a unreliable supply during the critical growing season. In 1905, an abnormally high spring runoff resulted in the destruction of small earthen dams that had been constructed to divert Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley. The course of the River changed, flooding the Valley and increasing the size of the Salton Sea from 22 to 500 square miles8. The river flowed into the Valley for 16 months before it was returned to its original course. In that time, it destroyed homes and crops and heavily damaged highways, railroads, and irrigation works. This event was a major catalyst to control and regulate the River, including construction of Hoover Dam and the All American Canal 1) Colorado River Compact 1922 In light of these growing concerns, with the consent of the U.S. Congress in 1921, the Figure 3: Colorado River Basin seven Colorado River Basin states Source: US Bureau of Reclamation authorized the appointment of commissioners to negotiate a compact for the apportionment of the water supply of the Colorado River. Although the States were unable to negotiate an allocation of water for each of the States, an agreement was negotiated and signed by the seven appointed commissioners from each of the Colorado River Basin states in November 1922. The Colorado River Compact (Compact) divided the Colorado River Basin (see Figure 3) into the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, which are defined as those states or parts of states from which water naturally drains into the Colorado River above and below Lee Ferry, respectively. Lee Ferry is a point on the mainstream of the Colorado River approximately one mile below the mouth of the Paria River in northern Arizona and is
8 The Salton Sea is a sub-sea level lake in the low desert of southern California, located in the historic floodplain of the Colorado River. In the last one thousand years the River's course has been altered at least three times due to high flows, moving the River's flow to a western channel and forming a freshwater lake called Lake Cahuilla. Eventually, the River would return to its more easterly channel leaving the lake to evaporate.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
16
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
defined in the Compact as the dividing point between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin9. The Colorado River Compact was successful in apportioning to the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and a portion of Arizona) and to the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of water to each basin annually. Because the Colorado River Basin includes a portion of Mexico, this Compact recognized the right of Mexico to the use of water from the River, however, water for this purpose was to be met from the surplus of water over and above the amounts apportioned to the Upper and Lower Basins. Additionally, any burden that might arise because of a water treaty with Mexico was to be shared equally by the two basins. This Compact recognized that the ability of the Upper basin to meet the requirement to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin could be impacted by climatic factors, therefore the Upper Basin is only required to restrict its use so that the flow of the river at Lee Ferry would not be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years. The Compact also recognized existing users in stating in Article VIII of the Compact, "Present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River system are unimpaired by this compact." Although all the commissioners from each of the States signed the agreement, the agreement stated that Congress could not ratify the Colorado River Compact until the State Legislatures of each of the signatory States approved it. The Arizona Legislature was the only State that did not approve the Compact, which resulted in a modification to the Compact that allowed for six-state approval and consent of the U.S. Congress, discussed below in the Boulder Canyon Project Act. 2) Boulder Canyon Project Act - 1928 The Boulder Canyon Project Act (Project Act) authorized construction of the Hoover Dam and Power Plant and the All-American Canal. In addition, it also authorized Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an agreement whereby the 7.5 million acre-feet of water apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact would be apportioned as follows: to California, 4.4 million acre-feet per year; to Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet per year; and to Nevada, 0.3 million acre-feet per year. The three states, however, were unable to agree on the apportionment. . The provisions of the Project Act stipulated that it would take effect upon fulfillment of either of two conditions. The first was that all seven states ratify the Colorado River Compact. Because Arizona was not satisfied with the terms of the Compact, it became impossible to meet this condition. In fact, Arizona did not ratify the Compact until 1944. The second condition required that six of the states, including California, ratify the Compact, and that California agree to limit its consumptive use of water from the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre-feet, plus one-half of any surplus. With the exception of Arizona, all of the Colorado River Basin states ratified the Compact, and passage of the California Limitation Act in 192910 completed the conditions required to make the Project Act effective. President Herbert Hoover declared the Project Act effective, by proclamation, on June 25, 1929.
9 Lee Ferry, the dividing point between the Upper and Lower Basins is not the same as Lee's Ferry, an historic river crossing point located 1.3 miles upstream from the dividing point. (The CAP 1918 1968, Rich Johnson) 10 The California Limitation Act addressed the requirement for the consent of the US Congress to six-state approval of the Compact
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
17
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
3) Lower Basin State Agreements and Water Delivery Contracts 1931 1944 In 1931, entities within California entered into the California Seven-Party Agreement, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, to identify priorities among the major water users in the State, prior to entering into water delivery contracts with the users. In 1942 and 1944, the Secretary of the Interior also entered into water delivery contracts with the State of Nevada for 300,000 acre-feet. At this time, the U.S. and Mexico were negotiating an international treaty for a yet unspecified volume of water raising concerns in Arizona about its own entitlement11. As a result, Arizona not only entered into a contract with the Secretary for storage and delivery of Colorado River water for 2.8 million acre-feet, but as a part of this contract finally ratified the Colorado River Compact of 1922. 4) Mexican Treaty 1945 In 1945, a treaty between the United States and Mexico involving waters of the Colorado, Rio Grande and Tijuana Rivers was enacted to address, among other things, a fixed entitlement for Mexico of 1.5 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River. The Treaty also provided an additional 200,000 acre-feet in years of supply surplus (for a total of 1.7 million acre-feet). In years of extraordinary drought, Mexico's entitlement is to be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the U.S. are reduced. The 1945 Treaty dealt with the volumetric entitlement to Mexico, however, it was silent on the quality of that water to be delivered. In 1962, the government of Mexico formally protested to the United States government regarding the quality of Colorado River water that was being delivered to the Mexicali Valley. After 1962, numerous meetings and negotiations led to adoption of Minute 242, executed in 1973, which obligates the United States to implement measures that will maintain the salinity of the Colorado River waters delivered to Mexico at nearly the same quality as that diverted at Imperial Dam for use within the United States. On June 24, 1974, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was signed into law, providing for the physical works necessary to implement Minute 242 without permanent loss of water to the Colorado River Basin states. 5) Upper Colorado River Basin Compact - 1948 The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact divided the water apportioned to the Upper Basin by the Colorado River Compact between the five states with territory in the Upper Basin. Arizona was allocated 50,000 acre-feet per year with the remainder of the Upper Basin entitlement divided according to the following percentages: Colorado, 51.75; New Mexico, 11.25; Utah, 23.00; and Wyoming, 14.00. 6) Colorado River Storage Project 1956 In 1956, Congress authorized the Secretary to construct, operate, and maintain the following projects in the Upper Basin, including dams, reservoirs, power plants, transmission facilities, and appurtenant works: 1) Curecanti consisting of three dams and reservoirs on the Gunnison River in Colorado: Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal; 2) Flaming Gorge located on the Green River on the Wyoming-Utah border;
11
The CAP 1918 1968, R. Johnson p. 19
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
18
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
3) Navajo (dam and reservoir only) located on the San Juan River in New Mexico; and 4) Glen Canyon located on the mainstream of the Colorado River on the UtahArizona border. 7) Arizona v. California - 1964 On August 13, 1952, the State of Arizona filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against California and seven agencies within that State to resolve the contention by California that the Central Arizona Project should not be authorized because Arizona did not have enough entitlement from the Colorado River to make this project feasible. At California's insistence, the U.S. Congress would not authorize the Central Arizona Project until Arizona's right to the necessary Colorado River entitlement was clarified. California contended that Arizona's access and utilization of water from the rivers located within the State of Arizona (specifically, the Gila River, a tributary of the Colorado River) reduced the amount of water that Arizona should be able to divert from the Colorado. Conversely, Arizona contended that the Colorado River Compact gave Arizona the right to use its tributaries in addition to the 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River entitlement. In the complaint, Arizona alleged, that its entitlement to Colorado River water was adversely affected by California and that its existing and prospective projects were threatened. The Decree, handed down in 1964, confirmed that Congress had already apportioned, through the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the entitlement of water to the three Lower Basin states as follows: Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet; California, 4.4 million acre-feet; and Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet. Any surplus above 7.5 million acre-feet was apportioned 50 percent to California and 50 percent to Arizona, except that Nevada was given the right to contract for 4 percent of the excess, which would come out of Arizona's share. The Decree also confirmed each of the Lower Basin State's entitlements to the flow of the tributaries within their boundaries, supporting Arizona's utilization of water from its inState rivers, separate from its entitlement to its full 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. The Decree also addressed the division of water in times of shortage stating, "In the event that there is insufficient mainstream water available for release then the Secretary, after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights12 in order of their priority dates (regardless of state lines) and after consultation with the parties to major delivery contracts may apportion any remaining water available for consumptive use consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act." In its Opinion, the Court dismissed sharing of shortages through equitable apportionment or by the law of prior appropriation stating that, "The Secretary should be free to choose among the recognized methods of apportionment or devise a reasonable method of his own13." The approach to sharing of shortages was amended later as a result of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, which gave present perfected rights, users served under contracts, and Federal reservations priority over the Central Arizona Project. 8)
12 13
Colorado River Basin Project Act - 1968
See Attachment V for listing of present perfected rights Updating the Hoover Dam Documents
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
19
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
In 1947, Arizona Senators Robert McFarland and Carl Hayden introduced Senate Bill 1175 to authorize the Central Arizona Project, the first of many attempts by Arizona to construct a canal from the Colorado River to Central Arizona. After the decision in Arizona v. California and five years of negotiation President Lyndon Johnson signed the Colorado River Basin Project Act on September 30, 1968 authorizing construction of the Central Arizona Project in addition to other water development projects in the Upper Basin. In order to get a Bill passed, several concessions were made on the part of Arizona. A significant concession was a provision that allowed existing California, Arizona, and Nevada Colorado River Contractors to receive a priority over the Central Arizona Project in times when the useable supply from the River was inadequate to provide 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin States, with California's priority limited to its 4.4 million acrefoot entitlement. The lack of a State Groundwater Code in Arizona was also used in the arguments against the Central Arizona Project. As a result, Section 304(a) of the Act contains a prohibition against water from the Central Arizona Project being used to irrigate lands not having a recent history of irrigation (except lands located on Indian Reservations). "Recent history of irrigation" has been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to mean irrigation at some time between September 30, 1958, and September 30, 1968, the date on which the Act became law. The Colorado River Basin Project Act was also instrumental in addressing on an annual basis the operation of the reservoirs of the Colorado River system to ensure that the needs of the users can be met and to conduct long-range assessments for the availability of water supplies. The Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to propose criteria for the "coordinated long-range operation of the reservoirs" in the Upper Basin with the operation of the reservoirs in the Lower Basin. Furthermore, the Act established the development of an Annual Operating Plan, in consultation with representatives of the seven Basin States to determine: (1) the projected operation of the Colorado River reservoirs to satisfy projected purposes under varying hydrologic and climatic conditions; (2) the quantity of water considered necessary as September 30 of each year, to be in storage in the Upper Basin reservoirs as required by the Act; (3) water available for delivery pursuant to the Mexican Treaty and Minute 242; (4) whether the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream users in the Lower Basin will be met under "normal," "surplus," or "shortage" condition: and (5) whether water apportioned to, but unused by one or more Lower Basin States exists and can be used to satisfy beneficial consumptive use requests of mainstream user in other Lower Basin States as provided in the Decree. B. Availability of the Colorado River Water
When the entitlements were identified in the Colorado River Compact in 1922, the river data showed an average annual flow of approximately 16 million acre-feet. At that time concerns were focused more on development of the river's supply in California and protecting development potential in the other States along the river, especially from the perspective of Colorado where the river originates. Since that time the mean annual flow of the Colorado River is estimated to be 14 million acre-feet. Currently, the Lower Basin is fully utilizing its 7.5 million acre-foot entitlement. Upper Basin demand is approximately 5 million acre-feet and Mexico is utilizing its full 1.5 million acre-foot entitlement.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 20
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
"Shortages" on the River are determined separately in the Upper Basin from the Lower Basin. For the Lower Basin, conditions are assessed through the development of the Annual Operating Plan and a determination is made as to whether the system will be operated under "normal", "surplus" or "shortage" conditions based on the volume of water in Lake Mead, the projected inflow to the reservoir, and the current demand for water in the Lower Basin. Normal conditions exist when the annual pumping and/or release from Lake Mead is sufficient to satisfy 7.5 million acre-feet of annual consumptive use. Surplus conditions exist when the Secretary determines that mainstream water is available in excess of normal conditions. A surplus condition allows water to be divided among the three Lower Basin States with 50 percent to California, 46 percent to Arizona, and 4 percent to Nevada. Additionally, if all water demands for contractors in the U.S. are met during surplus or flood conditions, the Secretary may allow the additional delivery of 200,000 acre-feet to Mexico. A shortage condition exists when the Secretary determines that there is insufficient mainstream water available to satisfy annual consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet. An elevation trigger has been developed to identify a shortage condition at 1000 feet above mean sea level, which is the elevation of the intake for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which develops and delivers Nevada's entitlement of 300,000 acre-feet. If projected inflows are insufficient to bring Lake Mead's elevation above 1000 feet and current demands meet or exceed 7.5 million acre-feet, the Secretary will declare a shortage on the River for the Lower Basin. Section 301(b) of the Basin Project Act states, "...that in any year in which, as determined by the Secretary, there is insufficient mainstream Colorado River water available for release to satisfy annual consumptive use of seven million five hundred thousand acre-feet in Arizona, California, and Nevada, diversions from the mainstream for the Central Arizona Project shall be so limited as to assure the availability of water in quantities sufficient to provide for the aggregate annual consumptive use by holders of present perfected rights, by other users in the State of California served under existing contracts with the United States by diversion works heretofore constructed, and by other existing Federal reservations in that State, of four million four hundred thousand acre-feet of mainstream water, and by users of the same character in Arizona and Nevada." Appendix V summarizes the priorities that apply within Arizona in the administration of Colorado River Mainstream Water and provides a listing of Colorado River contractors by priority order. C. The Central Arizona Project
Because of the foresight of individuals early in the development of Arizona's water supplies, the Central Arizona Project provides additional resources to the central, most populous portion of the State. As described above, the development of the Central Arizona Project took many decades, but with the enactment of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, the Central Arizona Project became a reality. Construction began in 1974 with water deliveries to the Phoenix area beginning in 1985. The canal was extended to the Tucson area and was determined to be complete in 1995. The total cost of the project was $3.6 billion. The Central Arizona Project canal runs 336 miles from Lake Havasu to the San Xavier Reservation, 14 miles south of the City of Tucson. The Central Arizona Project canal will deliver an average of 1.5 million acre feet of Colorado River water annually, but can, if necessary, deliver up to approximately 2 million acre feet.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 21
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Colorado River water is delivered to agricultural, industrial, Indian and municipal users in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties (see Figure 4). The Central Arizona Water Conservation District was created by Arizona Statute to manage the project and, through a contract with the Secretary of Interior, deliver water to contractors and subcontractors. The amount of water available to the Central Arizona Project was identified in the Contract as any portion of Arizona's entitlement remaining after the needs of senior rightholders are met, less 164,652 acre-feet for users along the Colorado River holding the same priority (see Priority 4, in Table 2 above). In 1981, the Secretary of the Interior issued a Record of Decision allocating water developed by the Central Arizona Project to Indian and non-Indian water users. Since that time, the allocations have been modified to address adjustments resulting from Indian water rights settlements and other agreements, Allocations have been identified primarily for two sectors - (1) Municipal and Industrial (M&I) and (2) Indian with any remaining or unused portion available for non-Indian Agriculture. Current municipal and industrial subcontracts total 556,680 acre-feet, divided among: cities, towns and water service organizations with Figure 4: Central Arizona Project definable growth patterns; copper mines; Source: Central Arizona Project electric power industries; the Arizona State Land Department for new development on State Lands; and Maricopa County for park development. Indian Communities who hold contracts through the U.S. for irrigation, domestic or other uses on within their communities currently total 388,906 acre-feet. In 1983, Secretary of the Interior Watt issued a revision of the Record of Decision that included a shortage sharing strategy. Although there are differences in interpretation of this document, the State of Arizona has interpreted the strategy to mean: first, delivery for miscellaneous uses would be reduced pro rata until exhausted; next, non-Indian agricultural uses would be reduced pro rata until exhausted; next, the Gila River Indian Community allocation would be reduced 25 percent and other Indian irrigation uses would be reduced 10 percent on a pro rata basis until exhausted; next, the non-Indian M&I uses would be reduced to 510,000 acre-feet. Thereafter, the remaining water contracted for by 11 Indian Tribal entities under existing contracts and 75 percent of the Gila River Indian Community allocation would share a priority with 510,000 acre-feet of M&I nonIndian uses14. Following the revision to the Record of Decision, the Secretary of the Interior and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District entered into contracts for delivery of water to several municipal and industrial water users that included inconsistent shortage sharing
14
Arizona Department of Water Resources CAP Shortage Sharing History, T. Carr, July 28, 1998
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
22
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
provisions. Additionally, as claims by several Indian Communities were settled, the allocations for M&I and Indian users were adjusted based on these negotiated settlements, some to the detriment of users who were not party to the settlements, further confusing the shortage sharing strategy. Both the State of Arizona and the Department of the Interior agreed that the current conflicting language could lead to litigation in the event of a shortage. The recent negotiations between the parties involved in the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement provided an opportunity to address several issues, including finding a solution to the shortage sharing issue. As a result, a single shortage sharing strategy has been developed through the Settlement Agreement that will be incorporated into all future modified contracts or subcontracts. The Shortage Sharing Strategy that was negotiated through the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement requires non-Indian agricultural subcontracts to be relinquished and the relinquished subcontract allocations to be combined with uncontracted water. The subcontracts for non-Indian agricultural water are currently based on a percentage basis of water available in each year. The shortage sharing strategy modifies the quantification of non-Indian Agricultural allocations from a percentage, to an acre-foot per year amount. In the event of a shortage, non-Indian Agricultural uses will still be the first to be reduced. Although most planning studies envision shortage declarations that will result in no water being available for the nonIndian agricultural priority contracts, there is also the possibility that a portion of this water would not be made available as result of higher uses by municipal and industrial sub-contractors and Indian contractors (due to the fact the non-Indian agricultural portion includes the unused sub-contract and contract allocations). In anticipation of these possibilities, the proposed shortage sharing criteria call for an allocation of available water on a pro-rata basis. The measure of the pro rata calculation will be based on the amount of recent use. The exception to this method is that portion of the Gila River Indian Community's water use that it has under contract, but did not put to use because distribution systems have not yet been completed. For M&I and Indian uses, the revised shortage sharing criteria eliminates many of the conflicting language and ambiguities that existed in the prior contracts. The new shortage sharing strategy is based on a fixed volume for the Indian priority pool and the M&I priority pool15. Furthermore, the strategy eliminates the steps that were used in the previous criteria and replaces it with a true co-equal priority. For any volume of water supply that may be available, an established formula calculates the total amount of water in the Indian pool and the M&I pool. The distribution of the available supply within each of the pools is then determined based on the percent of water recently used prior to the shortage. The sharing of shortages among Indian contractors is more complicated due to pre-existing conditions in several of the Indian contracts. Even with a shortage sharing strategy in place, the fact that water from the Central Arizona Project has the lowest priority on the Colorado River system means that users are highly vulnerable to shortages. To address this issue a mechanism exists within Arizona's
15
The M&I pool enlarges after the year 2044 in recognition of the conversion from non-Indian agricultural priority to M&I priority allowed in the Cliff Dam replacement contract.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
23
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
water management structure to decrease the potential impact from future shortages. In 1996, Governor Symington and the State Legislature created the Arizona Water Banking Authority. Until the Arizona Water Banking Authority was created, Arizona did not use its full 2.8 million acre-foot share of Colorado River water. Without the Arizona Water Banking Authority, it was anticipated that Arizona would not have used its full allocation until the year 2030. During that interim period, the accumulated amount of water left in the Colorado River would have amounted to approximately 14 million acre-feet, most of it going to southern California. Water managers recognized that leaving a portion of Arizona's water in the Colorado River was a lost opportunity and that by storing Arizona's unused apportionment, a supply could be available to offset future shortages on the Central Arizona Project system. To date, the Arizona Water Banking Authority has stored approximately 2 million acre-feet of Colorado River water in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. Additionally, the Arizona Water Banking Authority stores water to protect Arizona's other Priority Four water users, located on the mainstream of the River (e.g., Mohave County Water Users). In times of shortage, stored water will be recovered to offset Central Arizona Project delivery shortages experienced by municipal and industrial subcontractors. D. Surface Water Other Than Colorado River Water
Surface water from lakes, rivers and streams is another supply used in Arizona. Surface water is defined as "Waters of all sources, flowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in definite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, floodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface."[Arizona Revised Statutes 45101] These surface waters are subject to the "doctrine of prior appropriation," which means that the first person to put water to beneficial and reasonable use acquires a superior right to later appropriators. This person, or their successors, has the right to use a specified amount of water for a stated beneficial use each year, subject only to the rights of prior appropriators. To make best use of surface
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 24
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
water when and where it is needed, storage reservoirs and conveyance systems have been constructed throughout the state. Major reservoir storage systems are located on the Salt, Verde, Gila and Agua Fria Rivers. Flow in the Santa Cruz River in the Santa Cruz, Tucson and Pinal Active Management Areas is extremely variable with effluent-dominated perennial reaches downstream from wastewater treatment plants in the Santa Cruz and Tucson Active Management Areas. In the southeastern part of the state, the San Pedro River supplies water for agricultural use. There are a number of other smaller streams and surface water impoundments throughout the state that provide a local water supply. 1) Surface Water Law Some of the present day provisions of Arizona surface water law can be traced back prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago in 1848 by which much of Arizona and New Mexico was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico. [Water A review of Rights in Arizona, Fred Struckmeyer, Jr. and Jeremy Butler, April 1960] As Arizona was originally part of the New Mexico Territory, the Territorial legislators addressed water rights in 1851 by providing "owners of tillable lands" the right to construct public or private ditches to access water supplies and further allowed these facilities to run through other properties, so long as those whose lands were being crossed were compensated. This implies a nonriparian approach to appropriating water supplies as landowners who are not necessarily adjacent to the channel were allowed to initiate a beneficial use of these supplies. Arizona became a separate territory in 1864 and the first Arizona Territorial Legislature took action on surface water by declaring: "All streams, lakes, and ponds of water capable of being used for the purposes of navigation or irrigation, are hereby declared to be public property; and no individual or corporation shall have the right to appropriate them exclusively to their own private use, except under such equitable regulations and restrictions as the legislature shall provide for that purpose16." Later that same year the Territorial Legislature adopted a water code for the Territory, named the Howell Code after William T. Howell of Tucson who was appointed Code Commissioner. The Howell Code declared all rivers, creeks, and streams as public supplies and granted all inhabitants of the Territory the right to construct canals to access "the necessary water" to irrigate their lands "...from any convenient river, creek, or stream of running water." Additionally, the Howell Code addressed shortages in stating "...that during scarcity, the owners of fields shall have preference according to the dates of their respective titles, or occupation of the land, the oldest having preference." Even though the Territorial Legislature provided the ability to appropriate water for beneficial use, they did not address the mechanism to do so. This was not immediately an issue until increasing development coupled with drought towards the end of the 19th Century resulted in conflicts among users, especially on the Salt and Gila Rivers where development of agricultural lands was increasing significantly. In 1893, the Territorial Legislature required new water appropriations to be posted at the point of diversion and recorded with the County Recorder. The priority date of the water right was date of the "recording" of the notice, if the water was subsequently put to a beneficial use, "within a reasonable time thereafter." This recording system remained in place until 1919, when the newly formed State of Arizona enacted the 1919 Public Water Code, which has essentially changed very little over time and makes up the
16
Arizona Bill of Rights, Article 22
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
25
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
majority of the present Water Code (found in ARS 45-141, et. seq.). Now known as the Public Water Code, this law provides that a person must apply for and obtain a permit in order to appropriate surface water. Although the 1919 Public Water Code addressed the means to perfect a surface water right for appropriators after the Code's enactment, appropriators prior to 1919 still were not statutorily recognized. A registry of all pre-1919 water rights claims was established in 1974 as a result of the Water Rights Registration Act, which allowed individuals alleging a pre-1919 surface water right to file a claim. This has resulted in over three decades of judicial proceedings to determine the extent and priority of water rights in the Gila River system and in the Little Colorado River system and the impact on post 1919 permits through the Gila River Adjudication and the Little Colorado River Adjudication. After the enactment of the Water Rights Registration Act, several entities filed petitions with the Arizona State Land Department (the Agency responsible at the time for water rights) to determine the water rights in the Salt River, the Verde River and its tributaries, the Gila River (both the Upper and portions of the Lower Gila River including the Agua Fria River), Little Colorado River, the San Pedro River and its tributaries. At the time, there was litigation pending in federal court, which sought an adjudication of the Santa Cruz River watershed in Pima and Santa Cruz counties. In November 1981, the Arizona Supreme Court adjudications were consolidated. Pursuant to statute, summons were issued in both adjudications and served on potential claimants (all persons listed in the property tax assessments in each watershed and on all persons in the watershed who had, at the time, any kind of water rights filing on record with the Arizona Department of Water Resources, which was created in 1980 and now headed State water rights filings and permits). The summons required the filing of a statement of claimant with if the person claimed a water use in the watershed. Nearly 25,000 parties in the Gila River Adjudication have filed more than 86,600 statements of claimant, and over 3,500 parties have filed over 12,600 claims in the Little Colorado River Adjudication17.
Figure 5: Location of Tribal lands in Arizona
Source: Dept of Water Resources
17
Among these statements of
These totals include potential claimants who were served new use summons, those who have been initiated a new claim between July 1, 1991 and December 31, 2000, and who filed a claim as a result.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
26
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
claimant are several Indian Communities and Federal entities. This is significant in that in 1908 the U.S. Supreme Court determined in United States v. Winters, that federal reservations were allocated enough water at the time the reservation was established to meet the purposes of the reservation - predating the surface water rights held by many non-Indian users. Many parties have engaged in negotiations to resolve Indian and Federal Reserved water rights by settlement. These efforts have resulted in the Maricopa County Superior Court's approval, following Congressional approval, of six settlement agreements of Indian reserved rights the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Fort McDowell Indian Community, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe (only the claims to the Salt River), the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and the Tohono O'odham (although this has not yet been implemented). Negotiations to resolve the water right claims of several other Indian tribes have actively continued for several years. In 2003, the U.S. Congress approved the Zuni Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement in the Little Colorado River Adjudication. Currently, Congress is considering another Indian water rights settlement act, the largest is U.S. History the Gila River Indian Community. Although these settlements do not completely resolve the pending adjudications, the final Decrees will establish the existence and ownership of claimed water rights as well as important attributes of the water rights including location of diversions, water uses, quantity of water used, and date of priority of water rights. E. Groundwater
Groundwater has long been an important reliable source for many parts of this State. However, groundwater pumping over many decades has resulted in overdraft in some parts of the State. Overdraft occurs when more groundwater is withdrawn than is replaced by natural or artificial recharge. Decreasing reliance on groundwater supplies in Arizona, while maintaining the state's economy, has proven to be a complicated and challenging task. The recognition of the need to manage the State's groundwater resources has been a long process culminating with the development and adoption of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act. 1) History of Groundwater Law in Arizona The history of groundwater management in Arizona did not begin with the passage of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act. The increasing need for groundwater has created a long history of litigation. Although surface water law was developed through constitutional and statutory provisions, groundwater law has been interpreted from common laws through the courts 18. Subsurface waters were separately identified, by the Courts, as either flowing in underground streams or as percolating through the soil beneath the land surface. Beginning as far back as 1904, the Arizona Territorial Supreme Court adopted the common law rule that percolating water was the property of the overlying landowner and not subject to appropriation as surface water19. This decision was reinforced in 1918
Desmond D. Connal, Jr., 1982, A History of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act, Arizona Law Journal, pp 313 344. 19 Howard v. Perrin, 8, Ariz. 347, 76 P. 460 (1904), aff'd, 200 U.S. 71 (1906)
18
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
27
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
when the courts classified subsurface spring water as non-appropriable groundwater20. In 1926, subsurface water flowing in natural channels between well-defined banks, was affirmed by the courts to be subject to appropriation21. In 1931, the courts declared percolating water not to be part of an underground stream or sub-flow, again affirming groundwater as a non-appropriable water supply. Additionally, the burden of proving an underground stream was placed on the person who is claiming the existence of such water for appropriation22. In the 1930's, the combination of increased cotton prices, improved technology in well pumping efficiency, and the availability of inexpensive power led to increased groundwater pumping. As a result, individual well owners experienced declining water levels and difficulty producing water. Well owners began to compete for the supply as adjacent wells impacted each other, leading to litigation. In response to growing concerns over increased groundwater pumping, in 1938 the first commission to study groundwater was appointed by Governor Stanfield. The only thing the commission was successful in accomplishing was convincing the legislature of the need to appropriate funds to have the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigate and prepare a report on groundwater conditions in the state. The report, issued by the USGS in 1943, found that groundwater depletion would continue to increase further, as more lands were developed for farming. In order to limit the expansion of agricultural development, existing irrigation districts favored making Arizona's groundwater a publicly owned, instead of a privately owned resource. This would ensure that existing farmers would have the priority to continue farming and utilize the water supply, without competition from new farming operations. As a result of the USGS report, two bills were introduced in the 1945 legislative session. These bills would have 1) quantified and appropriated groundwater among the existing users; 2) limited or eliminated additional farming operations and 3) required the registration of all irrigation wells, however, neither bill was passed. At the same time the state was struggling with the groundwater situation, some of the state's top officials were also working on augmenting the State's existing supplies through conveyance of Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona as discussed in the previous section. In what would only be the beginning of the federal government's role in moving the state towards legislative groundwater management, the Bureau of Reclamation declared that the Central Arizona Project would not be approved until Arizona took steps to restrict agriculture irrigated with groundwater. In response, Governor Osborn reintroduced both bills in a special session. The well registration bill, which only required the registration of all wells throughout the state, was better received and became the Groundwater Code of 1945. It was immediately recognized that the 1945 Code did nothing to stop agricultural development and again in 1948 the federal government threatened to eliminate funding for the Central Arizona Project. A Groundwater Code was finally enacted in 1948, after six special sessions, that provided for designation of ten critical areas within the state (defined as areas without sufficient groundwater to provide irrigation for cultivated lands at current rates of withdrawal), prohibited the expansion of agriculture irrigated with groundwater within the
McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1, 5, 176 P.568, 569 (1918) Pima Farms Co. v. Proctor, 30 Ariz. 96, 245 Pac. 369 (1926) 22 Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65, 73, 4 P. 2d 369 (1931), reh. 39 Ariz. 367, 7 P. 2d 254 (1932)
20 21
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
28
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
critical groundwater areas, and allowed existing pumping to continue. Allowing continued pumping at historic levels in the critical groundwater areas and not apportioning groundwater use among the overlying landowners within the critical areas were problems. In response, a second groundwater study commission was, in 1951, charged with drafting a meaningful groundwater bill. The commission introduced a bill in the 1952 legislative session that would not only divide the state's groundwater basins into three separate management classifications but also, and most notably, changed the long-held common law rule of groundwater use to a publicly-owned resource subject to appropriation, however, this failed to pass. Additionally, during the 1950's, a series of Arizona Supreme Court decisions and additional groundwater study commissions failed to develop meaningful groundwater legislation. Meanwhile, the State's dependence on groundwater was continuing to increase. Coupled with extended droughts on the Salt and Verde River watersheds between 1942 and 1948 and again between 1953 and 1957, groundwater was legally being pumped at rates that far exceeded recharge23. The concept that the water beneath the land belonged to the landowner, together with the doctrine of reasonable use, encouraged landowners to pump as much water as they could use without regard to the impact on neighboring wells. The fact that all pumping from the common source affects all the overlying was still largely ignored. Although the 1948 Code put restrictions on development of new agricultural lands (although it lacked any enforcement provisions), it was silent on obtaining water to supply new non-agricultural development. Cities and towns relied on transporting groundwater from one location (where the well is located) to another location where the water is put to use. Although the area of pumping and the area of use were usually within the water service area of the water provider, in some instances water was being pumped from outside the service area and transported back to the service area for domestic and industrial uses. This situation would lead the state towards yet more complicated litigation. In fact, one of the issues that ultimately led to the development of groundwater management in Arizona was the transportation of groundwater. In a series of decisions between 1969 and 1974, the Arizona Supreme Court tried to tackle the issue of transportation of groundwater. In response to a lawsuit filed in 1969, the court issued an injunction against the City of Tucson prohibiting the transportation of groundwater from its well fields in the Avra and Altar Valleys, which had been designated as a critical area24. The Court held that the property right in percolating waters was only a right to use the water, limited by reasonable use, on overlying land, not ownership of the source. Subsequently, in 1970, the Court modified its injunction on Tucson based on surface water statute (ARS 45-147) for determining appropriative rights which gives preference to municipal and domestic uses over agricultural uses. The Court interpreted the statute to mean that municipal uses were higher in priority to agricultural uses and allowed Tucson to purchase and retire irrigated farmlands and transport the "annual historical maximum use" of groundwater applied to the irrigated acreage25. This allowed the City of Tucson to annually pump the highest amount of groundwater used on
Beddome, Larry. Undated Publication. History of Surface Water Law in Arizona and within the Salt River Valley: To Protect Our Water Supply. 12 p 24 Jarvis v. State Land Department (Jarvis I), 104 Ariz. 527, 456 P. 2d. 385 (1969) 25 Jarvis v. State Land Department (Jarvis II), 106 Ariz. 506, 479 P. 2d. 169 (1970)
23
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
29
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
the farm in a single year, thus allowing more pumping than ever. In 1974, the Court finally modified its previous decision and limited the pumping by the City of Tucson to 50 percent of the "annual historic maximum use26." During this time, what is often considered the single event that prompted the passage of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, was being argued in the Arizona Supreme Court, Farmers Investment Company v. Bettwy, 113 Ariz. 520, 558 P 2d. 14 (1976). Anamax, a mining company south of Tucson, was constructing a well in the SahuaritaContinental Critical Groundwater Area to provide water for its mining operations several miles away to mines located outside the critical groundwater area. Farmers Investment Company, who owned approximately 7,000 acres of farmland within the critical groundwater area, sued to stop Anamax from completing its well, claiming that the use of the water was outside "the land from which the water was taken" and violated the reasonable use doctrine established in (Bristor v. Cheatham, (Bristor II), rev. 75 Ariz. 227, 255 P2d. 173 (1953))27. In its decision, the Court recognized that the State had been committed to the reasonable use doctrine in an earlier case (Bristor II) and had operated for almost 50 years in this manner. In favor of Farmers Investment Company, the Court confirmed that under the doctrine of reasonable use water could not be pumped from one area and transported to another area, even if both areas overly a common source, if other wells suffered injury or damage. The Court went further, based on the same opinion, and limited the City of Tucson to withdrawals in the amount pumped before 1972, the date of its intervention in the case. In summary, the Court gave Farmers Investment Company the right to seek an injunction against the mines and the City of Tucson from transporting groundwater28. The impact of this decision was a great blow to the second and third largest water users in the state. Farmers Investment Company was persuaded to forgo its injunction, rather choosing to seek a settlement. However, this did not end the legal interpretation of the phrase "the land from which the water is taken" and the issue of transportation of groundwater from the critical groundwater areas remained uncertain. In 1976, the mines and the cities formed a tenuous alliance. The mines' were primarily interested in changing the transportation rules. The cities shared, to some degree, this interest, however, their primary objective was to conserve groundwater for supplying the expanding urban areas29. The newly formed alliance approached the agricultural interests within the state to discuss possibilities for new groundwater legislation. The farming community was opposed to the transportation of groundwater, believing that it would increase the depletion of the farmer's water supply, and refused to participate. However, in 1977 the three parties were persuaded to come together by Senator Alfredo Guitierrez and Representative Burton Barr to draft amendments to the 1948 Code. Concurrently with the discussions on groundwater management, the Federal government again weighed in on the Central Arizona Project. President Carter announced that among
Jarvis v. State Land Department (Jarvis III), 113 Ariz. 520, 588 P. 2d. 14 (1976) Clark, Emmett C., Arizona Water Resources Management Act of 1977 (A Proposed Water Resources Code or Statute), University of Arizona College of Law, 1977, 116 pp 28 Desmond D. Connal, Jr., 1982, A History of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act, Arizona Law Journal, pp 313 344 29 Philip Higdon and Terrence W. Thompson, 1980, The 1980 Groundwater Management Code, Arizona Law Journal, pp 621 667
26 27
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
30
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
other water projects in the United States the Central Arizona Project would be cut from the federal budget. Although later removed from the "hit list", Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, warned that if Arizona failed to enact a groundwater code, the Central Arizona Project would be eliminated. In the spring of 1977, the amendments to the 1948 Code were passed. The provisions of the 1977 Act were "intended to apply only until a comprehensive plan providing for groundwater use, allocation, and distribution..." were implemented30. The 1977 Act established a permit system allowing for the transportation of groundwater (again, pending the adoption of a groundwater code) and created a twenty-five-member Groundwater Study Commission (Commission) that was charged with developing a comprehensive groundwater code for Arizona. The Commission was required to prepare a draft report by June 30, 1979 and a final bill by December 31, 1979. To address the lack of effective groundwater management throughout Arizona's history, a provision was included that the Commission's proposal would become law if the Legislature failed to enact groundwater legislation by September 7, 1981. It is important to note that only the agricultural, mining, and municipal interests were involved in the Groundwater Study Commission discussions. Private water companies and developers, who would become important as the 1980 Code was implemented, were not present. The Commission was given two years to develop a groundwater code and submit legislation that would be acceptable to the major water users in the State, ensuring its immediate passage. Coupled with the increasing pressure from the Federal government to make genuine on its threats to cancel financing of the Central Arizona Project, the Commission was faced with balancing conflicting interests in a way that would ultimately become law, and doing so under the continuing pressure of a deadline. 2) The 1980 Groundwater Management Act In 1979 the Groundwater Study Commission released its draft report and in1980 the legislature passed the Groundwater Management Act. The Groundwater Management Act established the Arizona Department of Water Resources, with a Director appointed by the Governor, to administer its provisions. . The Arizona Department of Water Resources was charged with management of all groundwater resources in Arizona facilitate by the creation of four initial active management areas: Phoenix, Pinal, Prescott, and Tucson, and the formation of two irrigation non-expansion areas: St Johns and Douglas. The Groundwater Management Act also contains a number of important groundwater management components that are briefly summarized in the following sections. a. Management Goals and Management Plans Each of the initial Active Management Areas was assigned a "safe-yield" management goal except for the Pinal Active Management Area, which was assigned a goal that allows for economically feasible agricultural use of groundwater while preserving future water supplies for non-irrigation uses. The Code defines safe-yield as "...a groundwater management goal, which attempts to achieve and thereafter maintain a long-term balance between the annual amount of groundwater withdrawn in an active management area and the annual amount of natural and artificial recharge in the active management
30
Clark, Emmett C., Arizona Water Resources Management Act of 1977 (A Proposed Water Resources Code or Statute), University of Arizona College of Law, 1977, 116 pp
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
31
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
area31." In order to achieve the management goals, five management periods were established, between 1980 and 2025. For each management period, the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources must establish conservation requirements for all persons withdrawing, distributing or receiving groundwater designed to achieve reductions in withdrawals of groundwater. Industrial users (including mines, golf courses, schools, parks, dairies and feedlots) are required to use the latest available conservation method consistent with reasonable economic return. All industrial users are subject to general conservation requirements that include avoiding single-pass cooling unless the water is reused, reuse or recycle water if possible, use low-flow plumbing fixtures as required by state law and use low water use landscaping. In addition, specific water conservation requirements apply to certain types of industrial users. Cities, towns, private water companies, and irrigation districts that deliver water for nonirrigation (non-agricultural) purposes are subject to gallon per capita water per day conservation requirements. However alternative conservation programs that require specified conservation practices have also been developed to meet this requirement. Agricultural water use is subject to a "water duty", also established by the Director. Similar to the municipal users, alternative conservation programs are available to agricultural users that provide management flexibility. With each successive management period, the conservation requirements become progressively more stringent, within reason. b) Groundwater Rights The Groundwater Management Act also established a system of groundwater rights. Grandfathered Rights were established for existing groundwater users. An Irrigation Grandfathered Right allows for the irrigation of commercial farmland. Each Irrigation Grandfathered Right is assigned a maximum annual water duty allotment. The irrigation water duty is "...the quantity of water reasonably required to irrigate the crops historically grown in a farm unit including lined ditches, pump-back systems, land leveling, and efficient application practices...". The term "crops historically grown" was interpreted to mean the crops grown on actively irrigated farmland in the five years preceding the Code (1975 1979). Irrigation Grandfathered Rights are appurtenant to the land and cannot be severed or sold separately. Additional Grandfathered Rights established under the Code are Type I Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights and Type II Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights. A Type I NonIrrigation Grandfathered Right is established through the retirement of legally irrigated farmland and allows for withdrawals up to three acre-feet per acre. These rights are appurtenant to the retired irrigated land on which they are based and must be sold with the land. Type II Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights are not appurtenant to the land and can be sold independent of the land. Type II Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights are based on historic non-irrigation withdrawals prior to 1979. The Groundwater Management Act also identifies groundwater withdrawal permits for new non-irrigation uses: Dewatering Permits, Mineral Extraction and Metallurgical
31
1980 Groundwater Management Code, Title 45 Arizona Revised Statutes, Sections 401 through 636
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
32
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Processing Permits, General Industrial Use Permits, Poor Quality Groundwater Permits, Emergency Dewatering or Electrical Energy Generation Permits, and Drainage Water Withdrawal Permits. Each permit is issued for specific uses and for a specified duration. Water deliveries to domestic customers are permitted under a Service Area Right. A service area is the area that contains an operating distribution system for delivery of nonirrigation water. Under the management plans, large municipal providers (a city, town, private water company, or irrigation district delivering water in excess of 250 acre-feet per year for non-irrigation uses) are subject to conservation requirements based on per capita water use reductions. Holders of service area rights have the right to withdraw as much groundwater from within their service area as needed to serve their customers, subject to conservation requirements in the management plans and the Assured Water Supply Rules, as applicable. Service Area Rights can only be expanded for cities, towns, and private water companies under certain conditions. c) Assured & Adequate Water Supply Provisions The Groundwater Management Act requires that all land that is subdivided for sale or lease comply with the assured or adequate water supply provisions depending on whether the subdivision is within or outside of an AMA. The Department of Water Resources in February 1995 adopted the Assured and Adequate Water Supply Rules. Outside of the Active Management Area, developers can apply for a Statement of Water Adequacy or are required to disclose any "inadequacy" of the supply to the initial lot buyer. Water providers outside of Active Management Areas may also choose to obtain a Designation of Water Adequacy in which case developers are not required to submit plans for their subdivision's water supply if the lots will be served by the designated water provider. More rigorous provisions for new subdivisions are contained in the Assured Water Supply Rules inside the Active Management Areas. The sale or lease of subdivided land in an Active Management Area is prohibited without demonstration of an assured water supply. An assured water supply determination is required to gain approval of a subdivision plat by local governments, and to obtain authorization to sell lots by the Department of Real Estate. In Active Management Areas, new subdivisions are required to have a Certificate of Assured Water Supply, unless a water provider with a Designation of Assured Water Supply can serve them. Both municipalities and private water companies must demonstrate the ability to provide sufficient water for existing and new development in order to be designated as having an assured water supply. Further, the use of such water must also be demonstrated to be consistent with the management plan and management goal of the AMA, and cannot be demonstrated on groundwater supplies. d) Groundwater Transportation Statutes governing the transportation of groundwater within and between basins are designed to protect hydrologically distinct sources of groundwater supplies and the economies in rural areas by ensuring the groundwater is not depleted in one groundwater basin to benefit another. In general, groundwater cannot be transported between groundwater basins or from a groundwater basin into an Active Management Area except for specific transfers specified in statute. A.R.S. 45-551. Under current statute, groundwater can legally be redistributed within a subbasin, or within a basin that has not been divided into sub-basins, without payment of damages (A.R.S. 45-541 and A.R.S. 45-544). Groundwater may also be transported between sub-basins in the same basin, subject to payment of damages. A.R.S. 45-542 et seq.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 33
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Therefore, within an Active Management Area, groundwater withdrawn and used within the service area of a city, town, private water company or irrigation district may be transported within a sub-basin subject to the requirements for location of use on that Grandfathered Right or withdrawal permit. Transportation of groundwater of up to three acre-feet per acre across sub-basins or away from the Active Management Area is allowed for Irrigation Grandfathered Rights and Type I Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Rights (with some limitations), for use on acres appurtenant to that right. Transportation of groundwater across sub-basins or away from an Active Management Area for use within the same municipal service areas or irrigation district, or pursuant to a Type 2 NonIrrigation Grandfathered Right, a groundwater withdrawal permit or from an exempt well is allowed subject to payment of damages. As with many portions of the statutes, the section pertaining to groundwater transportation includes exceptions and allowances for unique circumstances. Some allowance for transportation of groundwater from outside of an Active Management Area is included for cities that purchased irrigated farmland prior to 1988. e) Water Augmentation and Recharge Water augmentation activities have resulted in the underground storage (recharge) of large volumes of Central Arizona Project water and effluent in the Phoenix, Tucson, Pinal and Prescott Active Management Areas. The goals of the recharge program are to encourage the use of renewable water supplies, allow for flexible storage of supplies not currently needed, and to preserve groundwater supplies. Recharging renewable water supplies that would otherwise be unused provides a supply during periods of extended drought and may help meet water management objectives such as replenishing areas that have been over-pumped. Another program goal is to allow for the efficient and costeffective management of water supplies by allowing the use of underground storage facilities for filtration and distribution of surface water rather than constructing surface water treatment plants and pipeline distribution systems. F. Effluent
Effluent, or treated wastewater, can be treated to a quality that can be used for purposes such as agricultural irrigation, turf grass watering, industrial cooling, or maintenance of riparian areas. Effluent has the potential to replace a potable water supply when potable water quality is not necessary for the use. Effluent can also be recharged to groundwater aquifers for future withdrawal and use or can be left in place to help replenish an aquifer or stabilize groundwater declines. Effluent is becoming an increasingly important water supply in both urban and rural areas of the state and can be of significant importance as a drought mitigation strategy. In the Active Management Areas the management plans contain a number of effluent use incentives. For example, effluent is not included in the calculation of the municipal gallon per capita per day conservation requirement and turf-related facilities can use more water for irrigation if effluent is part of the supply. If 100% effluent is used by a rightholder, then the regulatory provisions of the Groundwater Management Act do not
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04 34
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
apply at all since regardless of its original source, effluent is legally a separate type of water. Outside of Active Management Areas, particularly in communities with water supply concerns, effluent is being utilized to meet non-potable water demands. Other communities are recharging effluent for the express purpose of aquifer replenishment.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
35
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
Chapter 4 Workgroup Reports
To develop the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, the Governor's Drought Task Force requested the assistance of climate and water supply experts to develop triggers for identifying the inset of drought conditions, creating a Monitoring Committee. Additionally, Impact Assessment Workgroups were identified to assess the impacts of drought, identify regional vulnerabilities, identify potential mitigation and response options, and identify adaptation strategies to reduce drought impacts within the major water using sectors. The Impact Assessment Workgroups created by the Governor's Drought Task Force include the following: 1. Commerce, Recreation and Tourism; 2. Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock, and Wildlife; 3. Irrigated Agriculture; 4. Municipal and Industrial; and 5. Tribal The Monitoring Committee and Impact Assessment Workgroups are an integral component in the development of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, as these groups have included and will continue to include input from the public and will be the primary focus point for public involvement and input throughout the development of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan. Members of the Monitoring Committee and the Impact Assessment Workgroups include members of the Governor's Drought Task Force, individuals with a wide range of expertise and experience within the sector. The workgroups were cochaired by Arizona Department of Water Resources staff and external representatives of the sectors. A. Monitoring Committee The Monitoring Committee provided guidance in the development of a comprehensive monitoring network and will be the core of the ongoing effort to monitor and assess drought conditions in the state forming the basis of the drought adaptation and response activities. The objective of this Committee was to develop a drought monitoring system that provides detailed assessment data for decision makers in key government and economic areas impacted by drought. A key outcome of this effort is that Arizona will have a web based Drought Monitor report that contains a climate assessment, weather outlook, stream flow/runoff forecast (Jan-May), reservoir storage assessment and identification of drought decision triggers. The approach that has been developed for the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan is modeled after an approach developed by Georgia Tech University; using data compiled for specific indicators within each Climate Division compared against historic data and averaging the datasets to come up with a value that is then compared to trigger levels that have been developed for Arizona. Additionally, information derived from observations at the local level will be used to corroborate the compiled datasets. For example, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service field offices will be preparing quarterly reports on conditions in each portion of the state. The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, the US Department of Agriculture Farm Services, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department will be asked to collaborate on similar reports on a regular schedule.
Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan Background Section 10-08-04
36
GOVERNOR'S DROUGHT TASK FORCE
The drought indices, monitoring techniques and trigger points will be further refined in the future to respond to the varied landscape types in Arizona's primary physiographic regions (basin and range, Mogollon Rim, Colorado plateau) and the influence of local and regional elevation-induced weather and climate patterns. This process will be amended over time as improvements are made and additional information becomes available. The complete report developed by the Monitoring Technical Committee is contained in Appendix VI. B. Commerce, Recreation and Tourism Workgroup The Commerce, Recreation and Tourism Workgroup focused primarily upon the identification and evaluation of significant economic impacts associated with drought and the development of mitigation strategies to address these negative impacts. Key stakeholder groups include local, regional and state economic development professionals, land and resource professionals within Arizona State government, economists within academia, Federal land and resource program managers, and elected officials. The complete report developed by the Commerce, Recreation and Tourism Workgroup is contained in Appendix VII. Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife Workgroup The Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife Workgroup focused on ecosystem health and those who depend on healthy ecosystems to function. The workgroups objectives included: (1) Identify the information and resources necessary to develop a statewide, comprehensive monitoring and assessment program to identify the onset of drought and its impacts on wildlife, livestock, and ecosystems in the State of Arizona; (2) Identify existing and alternative emergency response options that can be used to mitigate the impacts of drought on wildlife, livestock, and ecosystems in the State of Arizona; and (3) Develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to minimize to the extent possible the impacts of drought on wildlife, livestock, and ecosystems in the State of Arizona. The complete report developed by the Environmental Health, Watershed Management, Livestock & Wildlife Workgroup is contained in Appendix VIII. D. Irrigated Agricultural Workgroup The Irrigated Agricultural Workgroup focused on Arizona's irrigated agriculture sector, including individual irrigators and irrigation districts, dairies, and feedlots. Key stakeholders include individual farm operators, irrigation districts, and affiliated organizations. The objective of the Irrigated Agriculture workgroup is to assess the vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts of drought on the sector and to develop response, mitigation, and adaptation strategies to sustain the long-term economic viability of the State's irrigated agriculture. The complete report developed by the Irrigated Agriculture Workgroup is contained in Appendix IX. E. Municipal & Industrial Workgroup The Municipal & Industrial Workgroup focused primarily on rural area municipal and private potable water providers. Key stakeholder groups include water providers, jurisdictions, rural watershed partnerships, and industry associations.